Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL

Read the Third time, and passed

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker:: No. I am on my feet.

ADELPHI ESTATE BILL

EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL

HYTHE, KENT, MARINA BILL

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL

LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL

PENZANCE SOUTH PIER EXTENSION BILL

SHARD BRIDGE BILL

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL

VENTNOR HARBOUR BILL

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read

To be considered tomorrow.

KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL

Motion made,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 121 (Quorum of committee on opposed bill), leave be given for the Committee on the King's Cross Railways Bill to proceed with a quorum of two.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered tomorrow

BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Order for consideration read.

To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Initial Teacher Training

Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures are being taken to improve initial teacher training in the area of classroom experience.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): On 1 January the Government introduced revised criteria for the approval of initial teacher training courses. The requirements for school experience have been strengthened. This autumn we shall be piloting the articled teacher scheme, in which more than four fifths of the training course will take place in schools. I am pleased to say to my hon. Friend that his own local authority, Hampshire, is participating in one of the pilot schemes.

Mr. Hunter: I warmly applaud the Government's commitment to improve initial teacher training, but may I ask my hon. Friend to take matters a stage further? Does he accept the proposition that in no circumstances should any teacher be granted qualified status unless he or she has first demonstrated in the classroom that he or she is capable of doing
the job of teaching?

Mr. Howarth: I readily accept my hon. Friend's proposition. We have made it a rule that no qualification attracting qualified teacher status should be awarded unless the student has demonstrated a satisfactory standard of teaching in the classroom. That means that the student will have to show that he or she can keep order and manage children in the classroom and can teach in such a manner that children learn effectively.

Mr. Flannery: What an alarming lack of knowledge about teachers Conservative Members show. The Education Reform Act 1988 does not even apply to the private sector. The Government have imposed it on the public sector, yet it has nothing to do with the sector in which they are involved. How can the Minister advance the cause of children and teaching by putting in front of a class a so-called licensed teacher�žsomeone who has never taught a class? Are not the Government demeaning our children and our teachers by that dreadful Act and by their sheer ignorance of teaching children?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman all too frequently chides us for not doing enough, in his view, to increase the supply of teachers. The licensed teachers scheme is a new initiative that will encourage mature entrants--people who have been doing something else in life, who decide that they would like to teach. Many valuable recruits will be brought into teaching in that way. There will, of course, be a carefully designed teacher training package, individually designed to suit the particular licensed teacher. The scheme will be arranged between local education authorities and the schools in question and am pleased to note that more than half the local education authorities in Britain dissent strongly from the hon. Gentleman's view and have applied to us for funding under the scheme.

Mr. Thornton: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a vast amount of experience in the classrooms in our schools and that more ways should be found of utilising that classroom experience in initial teacher training? Will he give an undertaking that he will look into that, with a view to allowing opportunities for career development for teachers, so that their classroom experience can be used in our initial teacher training colleges?

Mr. Howarth: As I mentioned earlier, we have strengthened the requirements for classroom experience. The new criteria that we have published for the accreditation of teacher education strongly insist that there should be an increased element of practical classroom experience for trainee student teachers. Therefore, there will necessarily be a close working relationship between teacher training institutions and schools. It is for them to develop the flexible pattern that meets their own requirements. The fact that there should be a close working association between teacher training institutions and schools is not in doubt and we have insisted that those who teach and lecture in teacher training institutions should have no less than one full term's teaching experience
every five years to update their experience.

Supply Teachers

Mrs. Ann Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with local education authorities about the number of supply teachers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alan Howarth: My right hon. Friend has not had any such discussions. He is aware that supply teachers are more readily available in some localities than in others. A total of £2 million of expenditure by 45 local education authorities will receive education support grant in 1990–91 on schemes designed to enable local education authorities to encourage qualified teachers in their area to come back into service, whether as supply teachers or on a
part-time or full-time basis.

Mrs. Taylor: Does the Minister accept that the national shortage of supply teachers is just one reflection of a deeper malaise in British education? Does he further accept that until we restore the confidence and morale of our teachers, we shall continue to see a shortage of classroom teachers? Does he agree that the main reason why we have those shortages is the pressure that the Government have put on teachers and the way in which this Government have undermined the confidence of the classroom teacher by the weight of legislation and by not taking proper account of experts and of those who actually teach?

Mr. Howarth: All of us on the Government Front Bench, including my right hon. Friend, honour teachers and have the greatest respect for what they do. We shall continue to give them all the practical support that we can. It would better become the hon. Lady if she spent less time on opportunistic and cynical denigration of the position in which teachers are held in society and was a little more generous in her recognition of the respect in which they
are properly held.

Mr. Sims: Is my hon. Friend aware that teachers who have taken early retirement from full-time teaching are

liable to have their pension reduced if they take up part-time teaching in the state sector, whereas they suffer no such penalty if they work in the private sector or in higher education? Would it not be as well to remove that anomaly and to encourage teachers who have taken early retirement to resume part-time teaching if they feel able to do so?

Mr. Howarth: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to ensure that there are no pension obstacles to enabling teachers either to continue in the teaching profession or to return to teaching, or that may discourage other people who may wish to come into teaching later in life. We have that area of policy under review. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I am consulting various sectors of industry and taking their advice on how we can best ensure that pension arrangements do not provide the discouragement to which my hon. Friend alluded.

City Technology Colleges

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress there has been on the city technology college programme.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science(Mr. John MacGregor): The city technology college programme continues to make excellent progress. Three colleges are now open and at least a further eight will open in 1990 or 1991. I have just announced the establishment of two new colleges in Corby and Derby.

Mr. Michie: As it now looks as if industry will contribute about 20 per cent. of the capital cost of CTCs, which means that the taxpayer will have to pay 80 per cent., is it not time that the Secretary of State admitted that the programme is a failure? Is he aware that senior educationists describe it as a criminal waste of public money? Is it not time that money went into the present maintained schools? One such school in my constituency, Carfield infant junior school, has waited many years for repair and maintenance work to be done. Is it not time that the Government stopped their rhetoric, which is doing nothing for education, swallowed their pride and admitted their mistake?

Mr. MacGregor: The three new colleges have already demonstrated their worth, not least in helping to improve standards in the area where they are located. I reject entirely the suggestion that they are a criminal waste of public money. City technology colleges have many advantages and they involve industry in education. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would pay tribute to, rather than denigrate, the £43 million or so that has been offered by sponsors and industry. He should also pay tribute to improving and pioneering technology in education and above all to raising standards in inner-city areas. I do not usually hear the hon. Gentleman complain about expenditure in those areas. I hope that he will recognise that expenditure on CTCs is fundamental to improving standards in
inner-city areas.

Mr. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is concern about CTCs among Conservative Members, too? We are worried that there are not enough and that the programme is not going forward quickly enough. We believe that CTCs will help to improve the quality and


standard of state education, where the overwhelming majority of our children are educated. Will my right hon. Friend bring forward a policy to accelerate the development of CTCs?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend about the contribution that the colleges make to improving standards and I have talked to him before about it. He recognises that there are practical constraints on the speed at which one can operate, not least of which are finding sites and developing them. I hope that he will acknowledge that my announcement in the past few weeks of two new CTCs in Derby and Corby illustrates that the programme is moving ahead as swiftly as possible. I hope that he also noticed the announcement that I made about funding curriculum development in the CTCs, to ensure that the benefits of CTCs go more widely into the whole maintained sector.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State explain how he reconciles the statement of his predecessor �žwhich gained the most applause at the Tory party conference �žthat CTCs would not be part of the local education authority, with the proposal of the Tory-controlled Wandsworth borough council that Battersea Park school, currently a local authority school, should become a part-local authority, part-private CTC? Has not the CTC programme become so bogged down that the only way to rescue it will be to break two major pledges? First, CTCs will include Church schools, which were originally excluded. Secondly, CTCs will include local authority schools, which will remain with the local authority, as the Tories in Wandsworth now propose.

Mr. MacGregor: I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman believes that the programme is bogged down. I find it difficult to understand how he can reconcile that with the fact that I have just announced two more CTCs. We are making progress. The proposal to which the hon. Gentleman refers is for a CTC in the voluntary-aided sector. It is being considered by the local authority. I was interested to hear of that development. As it is worked out, I shall consider it carefully.

Mrs. Currie: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing a new CTC to Derby, where it will be welcome, and we shall make it a great success. Would he care to reflect on how it will raise the level of technical and engineering education in Derby and south Derbyshire, which is now the engineering success story of the country?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that she will be an enthusiast for this latest development. I am sure that, like me, she will wish to thank the industrial sponsors for the part that they played. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. CTCs, the technical and vocational education initiative�žwhich the Government have undertaken, and on which we are spending considerable sums�žand the national curriculum all aim to improve technical and engineering excellence in schools. I am sure that the CTC in Derby will make a major contribution to that.

Mr. Straw: As the previous Secretary of State promised that 20 CTCs would be in operation by the end of last year and as this Secretary of State has managed to produce only three, he must know that his bluster about progress is wholly unconvincing. Is he aware that the business

sponsor of the new Wandsworth CTC, a sleazy, Bermudan-based second-hand car trader, Mr. Michael Ashcroft�ž[Horn. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We should all calculate how we frame our questions.

Mr. Straw: A sleazy, Bermudan-based, second-hand car trader, Mr. Michael Ashcroft, has admitted in a letter to the leader of Wandsworth council that he sees his sponsorship of the Wandsworth CTC as no more than Conservative party political propaganda, but at the taxpayers' expense. In view of that, is it not now clear that expenditure on CTCs is not only a criminal waste of money, but deeply corrupt?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is getting really desperate in the way in which he is trying to criticise the CTC programme. His attack is disgraceful. The other day the hon. Gentleman made a similar attack on the industrial sponsors of CTCs generally. Was he including in that attack the following sponsors, all of which are contributing to CTCs�žAustin Rover, W. H. Smith, Boots, Marks and Spencer, Coats Viyella and Wimpey? Such an attack does no credit to the hon. Gentleman and represents a disgraceful attack on the industrial sponsors that are contributing so much to the CTC programme.

Mr. Matins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in September a new CTC will open in Croydon, the Harris CTC? There are 180 places at that college, but more than 500 parents have applied to send their children to it. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that there have been more than 500 applications for the 40 staff vacancies? Surely those figures demonstrate that the CTC operation is a huge success among teachers and parents.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is entirely right and the programme for that CTC is going well. My hon. Friend has already given some of the figures and, in September, there will be an intake of 180 pupils�ž160 have already been accepted. That is not all, howeverߝplaces have been allocated to pupils across the full ability range. Ninety pupils will come from Croydon and 90 from the wider catchment area, including Southwark, Lewisham, Lambeth and Bromley. As my hon. Friend said, the applications for the teaching posts are going well. It is a clear illustration of the fact that the CTC programme is making a major contribution in certain parts of the country and is on course.

Nottinghamshire

Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assistance by Government is given to pupils per head (a)at schools in Nottinghamshire and (b) at the Nottingham city technology college.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): This year Nottinghamshire received almost £150 million of block grant. CTCs receive recurrent grant equivalent to expenditure by local education authorities on schools in
comparable areas.

Mr. Allen: I should like to extend to the Minister another chance to apologise to the parents and children of Nottinghamshire for spending three times more on one school, the CTC, than on all the other schools in


Nottinghamshire. While she is at it, will she offer an explanation for the appalling disciplinary record of the CTC in Nottinghamshire and of those elsewhere?

Mrs. Rumbold: Far from apologising, I should be congratulating the parents in Nottingham on their ability to send their children to a good school that has been provided in part by industry. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we have every confidence that those schools will be highly successful.

I must explain to the hon. Gentleman that he is talking about capital grant. I have already explained perfectly clearly that CTCs, in common with other schools, receive recurrent block grant, which is equitable to expenditure on schools within the maintained sector.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Instead of knocking Nottingham's magnificent new CTC, which is widely welcomed by local people, why does not the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) admit that, in the past 10 years of Conservative Government, Government education expenditure per pupil has gone up by no less than 71 per cent. in real terms? That expenditure has increased from under £1,000 per pupil to more than £1,700 per pupil.

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is right. The Government's record of education expenditure per pupil is extremely good. He is also right to say that the people of Nottingham should be grateful. I second that, as the establishment of the CTC is in spite of the disgraceful behaviour of Nottinghamshire county council, which tried to do everything that it possibly could to prevent its establishment.

Agricultural and Food Research Council

Dr. Bray: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the primary role of the Agricultural and Food Research Council.

Mr. MacGregor: The council was established by royal charter to organise and develop agricultural and food research; to establish or develop institutions or departments of institutions for investigation and research relating to the advancement of agriculture or the production and processing of food; and to make grants for such investigation and research.

Dr. Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that it will only confuse and prolong uncertainty if the merger with another research council, with quite a different role, is pursued? Does he acknowledge that the AFRC has been going through a time of major change? It has successfully pursued new science and is tackling new problems. It has important work to do in the genetic engineering of plants, food safety and the effects of diet on health. Arrangements have been made for co-ordination with other research councils. Will the Secretary of State let the
AFRC get on with its job?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will know that I know a great deal about the AFRC because I have been involved with it in more than one of my departmental responsibilities. He will know that the Advisory Board for the Research Councils recently made recommendations to me about its reconstitution, which I accepted and which will greatly improve its co-ordination role and various

other matters relating to research. The ABRC also advised about a proposal for improving co-ordination between the AFRC and the Natural Environment Research Council, which I think is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. The Government are actively considering that and will announce their conclusions as soon as possible. I hope that we shall do so fairly soon because I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need
for a response to that matter.

Mr. Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend consider that it might be a little short-sighted to withdraw Government funding from the AFRC's specialist meat laboratories in Bristol when there are anxieties about issues such as mad cow disease and so on? Surely, to cut back on £1.6 million of expenditure on an industry that earns more than £8 billion a year is a false economy, given the need for high quality specialist research such as that laboratory has provided for many years?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is not quite right. We have been withdrawing Government funding from near market research, the primary objective of which is the development of a specific product or process for commercial sale or use. That is absolutely right because it enables us to concentrate our priorities on where public funding should be spent and to avoid duplication and overlap with the private sector. One part of the restructuring of the Institute of Food Research, Bristol to which my hon. Friend referred, was related to that. He will know that the restructuring means that we are concentrating on the Norwich and Reading laboratories, where we will increase the number of scientists. That will ensure a more effective outcome from research.

Mr. Skinner: What about Bristol?

Mr. MacGregor: I am coming to that. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should allow me to continue. I partly dealt with that point when I explained the restructuring.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) will notice�žI am sure that he will�žthat this Government have actually increased Government funding of food research by more than 120 per cent. in real terms. We have just announced an additional £12 million to deal with the very livestock problems that my hon. Friend's question addressed.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, despite all that he has just said, the Government intended to close down the Institute of Food Research, Bristol? When the Japanese found out about that, they proposed to the Prime Minister, during her visit, that they would hand her £1 million to take back to save that research institute �žand took the money out of Japan's Third-world budget. What a sorry state this country is in

Mr. MacGregor: As usual, the hon. Gentleman prepares his question before he has heard the answer to the previous one. The research project, which has had so much attention, was reaching the end of its useful research life, as those evaluating the research made clear. The restructuring affecting Bristol is part of a general restructuring. The clear sign of how the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong is that we have announced an additional £12 million for bovine spongiform encephalopathy research for the coming year�ža
substantial increase.

Nursery Schools

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on nursery school provision.

Mrs. Rumbold: The number of under-fives in school rose by 28 per cent. over the last decade and the age participation rate rose to 45 per cent. Our plans enable that healthy trend to continue.

Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Staffordshire there is excellent nursery school provision in Stoke-on-Trent, but virtually none in the rest of the county? Does she think that that is satisfactory or fair to the rest of the county?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend will be aware that it is for the local education authority to decide how best to deploy its educational spend, but there has been a tendency for local education authorities to concentrate on the provision of nursery education in the urban rather than in the county areas.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Minister confirm that the 20 best providers of nursery education are Labour-controlled authorities and that the 20 worst are Tory or Social and Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities? Is it not a fact that some of those Tory-controlled authorities do not spend any of the money provided in the old rate support grant for nursery
schools or classes?

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate. It is true that funds go to the urban areas as part of the Government's strategy to help those who are in most need, but it is not true to say that there is no provision within the county areas for education for the under-fives, because there is through the voluntary sector.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Do the Government accept the principle, enunciated in the recent report of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, that under-five provision should be available to all parents who seek to avail themselves of it for educational reasons, and will my hon. Friend seek to persuade all local authorities in principle to move towards that end?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend knows that I am at present chairing a committee which is looking into the quality of education for the under-fives in the voluntary and state sectors. We must remember that that falls between two Departments, but we hope to improve the quality of the provision for the under-fives in the voluntary and the state sectors�žthe very point that my hon. Friend makes.

Ms. Armstrong: I am pleased that the Minister recognises that the policy often falls between two Departments, but the Department of Education and Science has a responsibility for the education of our young children. When will the Government ensure that all children have the opportunity about which the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) talked, and when will they recognise that a child has twice the chance of attending a nursery class or school at the age of three or four in a Labour-controlled authority than in a Tory-controlled authority? Will she congratulate those Labour-controlled authorities, and make sure that money is available next year for all children in all areas?

Mrs. Rumbold: As my committee is considering just those questions, perhaps the hon. Lady will read its report with great interest when it comes out later this year.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: In view of the amount of surplus accommodation in many of our schools, would not this be an appropriate time to see whether some of that accommodation can be adapted for pre-school use by the private or the public sectors, or in partnership? Would not that help to deal with the problem of attracting more women, whom we so badly
need, back into the workplace?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend may be aware that many authorities are sensible about adapting some of the surplus primary school accommodation to do just that, working in concert with the voluntary sector to provide pre-school education. In addition, many authorities are now taking children into school before the age of five in order to give them a good start in their first year of compulsory
education.

Student Loans

Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate he has made of the cost of administering student loans in respect of students attending universities in (a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland in
each year until 2010.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): The administration costs of the loans scheme for United Kingdom students will be in the order of £10 million to £20 million in the first three years. Precise costs will be published shortly.

Mr. Darling: I understand that the banks have agreed to write off half the cost of the sums incurred when it was thought that the banks would go ahead with the scheme. What is the Government's share of the money that has now been written off and when does the Minister expect to know how much the Student Loans Company will cost during the next 20 years? Who will pay for that, or will those sums be recovered from the banks by way of the retribution that the Prime Minister has apparently promised them?

Mr. Jackson: Much of the expenditure incurred in line with the supplementary estimate approved by the House is adaptable to the student loans scheme in its new form, so the question of additional costs to the Government does not arise. The banks' £500,000 contribution will be gratefully received. As to long-term costs, with any loans scheme there is a period when money is being advanced before it starts to come back. We have told the House that we expect current savings from the beginning of the next century.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that what really bothers the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) is that all that money will be spent in central Glasgow? Can my hon. Friend give an up-to-date estimate of the number of jobs that the Student Loans Company will create for the Glasgow area?

Mr. Jackson: We estimate that some 200 additional jobs will be created in Glasgow as a consequence of the company's premises being located there.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will students attending colleges and universities in Northern Ireland draw from the same scheme or will there be a separate one for them?

Mr. Jackson: The loans scheme will be national, so students in Northern Ireland will also draw from it.

Mr. Bowis: Has my hon. Friend been able to estimate the cost of existing bank loans to students when they have to pay for them at the full commercial rate? Will he reveal the savings that students will enjoy as a result of his new scheme?

Mr. Jackson: Our survey suggests that the average student has an overdraft at the end of each year of study of the order of £340. Much of that money is loaned at commercial rates of interest, whereas the Government scheme will operate at a zero rate of interest, with repayments deferable if income is below 85 per cent. of national average earnings.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the Minister admit that his estimates of additional costs amounting to £2·17 billion over the next 20 years, over and above the cost of uprating grants in line with inflation, excludes administrative costs and interest rates subsidy—both of which will add hundreds of millions of pounds to the cost of the scheme —and provides for no expansion in student numbers beyond the end of the century? Does not that show that his deeply flawed scheme is financially as well as educationally bankrupt and ought to be abandoned forthwith?

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman complains that the Government are being too generous to students.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the number of students entering higher education in 1989 and the number making applications to do so in 1990 confirms that the scheme provides no barrier to entry?

Mr. Jackson: Yes, I can confirm my hon. Friend's proposition. Last year's recruitment of higher education students reached a record. They were also the first generation of students applying in the knowledge that there will be a student loans scheme.

Bradford

Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to visit Bradford to meet local education authority members.

Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so.

Mr. Madden: Before the Minister meets members of Bradford local education authority, will she read chapter 11 of "The Pickles Papers" and pass copies of that book to the Director of Public Prosecutions and to the Audit Commission? Will she invite the DPP to investigate the recent abortive management buy-out of Bradford school meals service and the recent and unexplained resignation of one of the two senior council officers concerned? While the Minister is at it, will she lean on Bradford council to reduce substantially the cost of school meals, which have been substantially increased to boost profits on privatisation, resulting in—

Hon. Members: Too long.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Rumbold: No, Sir. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the people of Bradford elect their local councillors. They did so recently, and Bradford's Conservative-controlled council is doing extremely well.

Mr. Riddick: When my hon. Friend next visits Bradford, will she congratulate its Conservative council on its successful efforts to encourage a city technology college to Bradford? Will she also congratulate Councillor Riaz on his good sense in resigning the Labour Whip and going over to the Conservative group, thereby doubling the Conservative majority on Bradford council?

Mrs. Rumbold: I shall take great pleasure in congratulating Bradford council on both counts. I am particularly delighted to be able to commend the opening of Bradford's new CTC in September.

Student Loans

Mr. Doran: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for the administration of the student loans scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacGregor: The Student Loans Company Limited will be responsible for the administration of the scheme. As recent announcements demonstrate, preparatory work is well in hand.

Mr. Doran: I understand that the scheme is to operate commercially. Has the Secretary of State any plans at this stage to privatise the loans company, and as part of its commercial operations will it allow the sale of lists of student addresses and names and the debts of students?

Mr. MacGregor: The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is no. We are still setting up the company. It must be commercial in the sense that we shall have to pay commercial rates for the staff with the kind of expertise we want. It is being set up as a private company and that is how we intend to run it.

Mr. Mans: Will my right hon. Friend consider discussing with the Open university the possibility of extending the student loans scheme to Open university students? During those discussions, will he take the opportunity of congratulating the Open university on the first 20 years of its existence and the graduation of its 100,000th graduate?

Mr. MacGregor: We have no plans to extend the loans scheme beyond where it is. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that I did indeed congratulate the Open university this morning, when I presented the 100,000th graduate with her certificate. There is no doubt that from many points of view the Open university has been a great success and one which the United Kingdom has been pioneering.

Natural Environment Research Council

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the primary role of the Natural Environment Research Council.

Mr. MacGregor: The council was established by royal charter to promote, support and carry out research in the earth sciences and ecology; to provide and operate ships, equipment and other facilities for common use in such


research; to provide advice and disseminate knowledge in the fields of its responsibility; and to make grants for such research.

Mr. Mullin: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is important that the Natural Environment Research Council be kept independent of pressure from farmers and food manufacturers and that therefore it should not be merged with the Agricultural and Food Research Council?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already made it plain that I hope to make an announcement on that issue as quickly as possible. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise, as the ABRC recommendation and the report of the Select Committee from another House recognised, that there are many areas in agriculture, land use and on environmental questions where there is an overlap and an identity of interest. Therefore, it makes sense to look at how better co-operation can take place. But I hope to make an announcement on the matter as soon as possible.

Self-governing Status

Mr. Robert B. Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimates he has of the average sum from central education overheads of local education authorities which would be available to schools seeking self-governing status.

Mr. MacGregor: The addition for services previously provided centrally by a local education authority amount on average to £94,000 in 1989–90, which is 15 per cent. on average of the direct costs of grant-maintained schools. Grant-maintained schools have the freedom to choose how to spend most efficiently their share of this central spending.

Mr. Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that it confirms that the additional money will be available, if schools want it, to spend on additional staff or extra equipment instead of on the salaries of bureaucrats and providing offices for them to work in? Does he further agree that it would be available for all schools if there were a big cut in the amount of bureaucratic overheads that schools have to carry?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend that this gives much greater scope for flexibility for resources to be deployed as the school wishes—as the head teacher, staff and governors wish—and to use the resources more efficiently. There is already considerable demonstration that that is happening, and that is one of the many merits of grant-maintained schools.

Mr. Fatchett: Will the Secretary of State explain how he equates last week's statement on opt out schools when he made available in capital terms 42 per cent. more to each of those schools than to equivalent maintained sector schools? How does he justify that when he told the House that there would be no difference in treatment between those schools and maintained sector schools? Is it really a case that the social division of this programe can be maintained only by the political bribes that are involved in that amount of money?

Mr. MacGregor: That is a nonsensical question. There is no social division in this programme because the schools continue to draw, and their character is precisely as it was before. As for the comparison, the hon. Gentleman makes

a point that fails to take into account many other factors —for example, that the grant-maintained schools are concentrated entirely on the secondary sector, whereas 80 per cent. of all maintained schools are primary schools and are therefore smaller; that in the maintained sector other sources of revenue are available for capital expenditure, including capital receipts; and that the maintained schools have to pay VAT. The hon. Gentleman really does not have his facts right.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: When considering the reallocation of central education overheads, will my right hon. Friend consider extending that principle to schools operating under local financial management? Is not their track record one of obtaining more value for money than the central bureaucrats?

Mr. MacGregor: As local management of schools comes into operation, I expect savings to be made in the central administration of local education authorities, reflecting the direct transfer of a considerable amount of their responsbility to the schools.

Standard Assessment Tests

Mr. Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what decisions have been made about the publication of standard assessment tests at seven years; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Rumbold: Standard assessment tests for seven-year-olds in English, mathematics and science will be piloted in a sample of schools this summer. In the light of lessons learned, revised SATs will be produced for the first full national assessments in these subjects in summer 1991.

Mr. Turner: How will the Secretary of State ensure that the tests are used diagnostically to improve education development, rather than being employed simply to pit one seven-year-old child against another?

Mrs. Rumbold: As I think hon. Gentleman knows, we are very keen to ensure that the purpose of assessments, and standard assessment tests, is to help teachers, parents and the children themselves obtain the best possible education, and assessments will be undertaken with that in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Government's dogged inflexibility a fair response to the exceptional sense of duty shown by our ambulance men when dealing with injured and dying victims of this week's gales and tempests? What greater catastrophe is required to bring home to the Prime Minister the justice of our ambulance men's case?

The Prime Minister: What the hon. Gentleman says is not correct. The Government and management have


moved on the ambulance men's case for more pay; it is the ambulance men who have not moved at all since their unions recommended, a long time ago, that they accept a 6·5 per cent. increase. The Government moved to an 18-month settlement, which would offer the men increases of between 9 and 16·3 per cent.—a considerable increase that would cost £6 million more to implement in this financial year. That is far from being inflexible; it represents actual movement.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when we are faced with the present historic uncertainty in eastern Europe and the collapse of law and order in East Germany, idle talk of a peace dividend is premature? Would it not be prudent for the United Kingdom to look to Vienna for serious and constructive negotiations, rather than slashing our defence forces unilaterally?

The Prime Minister: I agree wholly with my hon. Friend. Piecemeal reductions would be fatal at this time of great uncertainty. In such circumstances, the right way is to negotiate through the conventional force reduction talks in Vienna. That is how we managed to secure effective reductions in the Warsaw pact forces—larger reductions than those on our side, indeed—and also some verification. NATO is already considering precisely how those reductions should be shared out equitably between its members.

Mr Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister tell us her response to yesterday's statement by Church leaders appealing for the Government to set up an independent inquiry with the purpose of resolving the ambulance dispute?

The Prime Minister: Had the right hon. Gentleman listened to my previous answer he would already know that the Government have moved on the ambulance dispute. There is already a negotiating body, which is the right body to conduct negotiations, and the increases that the management has offered would cost the taxpayer some £6 million more this financial year.

Mr. Kinnock: On the subject of the cost to the taxpayer, can the Prime Minister confirm that she has already spent £10 million of the public's money on keeping the dispute going? That is more than it would cost to settle it. Where is the sense in that, either for the public or for the ambulance personnel or, indeed, even for the Government? When the public so clearly support the ambulance workers' case why is the Prime Minister so completely out of touch with the feelings of the British people?

The Prime Minister: The sense is to stick to established methods of negotiation, whether a pay review body or a Whitley council. Once one departs from that, it is very difficult for those who have honoured their own methods of negotiation and, indeed, settled at the amounts they were offered, as 85 per cent. did early last summer. It is a great pity that ambulance men did not accept the advice of their union and settle at that time.

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Carrington: My right hon. Friend will know that my constituents who live around Stamford Bridge greatly welcome the determination of herself and of the Home Secretary to bring football hooliganism to an end. Is not this in marked contrast to the attitude of those who reject all-seater stadiums and, incredibly, even seek to deny that football hooliganism exists? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to use the licensing powers under the Football Spectators Act to close any ground where football hooliganism persists in the street outside the stadium?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, and as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made clear yesterday in his very robust way, the Government accept the Taylor alternative strategy for dealing with these matters in football stadiums, and we accept Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations. During the passage of the Football Spectators Bill we made it clear that having all-seat stadiums could be made a condition of a licence being given by the Football Licensing Authority. It would be open to the licensing authority to do that. I think that the conditions for a licence do not apply to hooliganism outside the grounds. That matter is already dealt with by other measures, such as the Public Order Act, and by some of the changes that have been made to prohibit the availability of alcohol on buses and trains travelling to designated football matches.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: On this day when there has been support for ambulance workers in Britain, why is the Prime Minister so quick to praise them but so slow to pay them?

The Prime Minister: Of course I am always quick to praise ambulance men, as I am quick to praise other people who work in the Health Service, 84 per cent. of whom accepted pay increases between 6·5 and 6·8 per cent. last summer. We have, in fact, offered the ambulance men, according to where they work or their qualifications, increases of between 9 and 16·3 per cent. over a period of 18 months. That offer represents an increase on the first one, which was rejected.

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Gorman: In view of the Hansard Society's report on women at the top, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it makes sense that a job created in the home, or elsewhere, that helps a woman to go out to work is just as valid as any other job and should be treated in the same way for tax purposes? While we are on the subject, what about a few jobs for top women in our own Whips' Office and in the Cabinet —

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should ask only one question.

Mrs. Gorman: . rose? —

Mr. Speaker: Order. To ask more than one question would be unfair to the hon. Lady's colleagues.

The Prime Minister: I am sure that all my hon. Friend's comments were interesting, but I heard only the first half. I should like to reply to the half that I heard. My hon. Friend asked for tax allowances for people who look after children. As she knows, this is not allowed for tax purposes, any more than are the expenses of travelling to work or of having someone at home to look after an elderly relative would be allowed. That is the present law. A change in the Finance Bill would be needed to change it. I hope that my hon. Friend will make her representations to different quarters, because I can say nothing about that matter. 
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary will have heard my hon. Friend's other request, and will consider what further action to take.

Dr. Owen: What is going wrong with Anglo-American relations? The United States President is cutting defence expenditure by 2 per cent; further, faster and deeper reductions are emerging in the conventional forces European negotiations; and the United States President is openly advocating a NATO defence review. The Prime Minister refuses to do any of those things. The two Governments cannot even split their differences between six months and a year on the compulsory repatriation of Vietnamese boat people.

The Prime Minister: That is two questions in one. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the United States spends a much bigger proportion of her national income on defence than does any other major NATO country. She spends 6 per cent. of her national income on defence whereas, on a similarly calculated basis, we spend 4 per cent., so I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can criticise the United States if it makes some changes.
Any changes that affect the mainland of Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, are made through the CFE negotiations. Any proposals go through the NATO machinery first, so that we are all consulted and agree what should go forward to the CFE negotiations. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises that that is perfectly right.
I agree that there is a difference of opinion on the Vietnamese boat people—possibly because of America's history in Vietnam and because she lost 55,000 people in her fight there which kept communism back long enough to prevent its extending throughout the area. We shall, of course, go forward with compulsory repatriation.

Sir Hal Miller: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir Hal Miller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever other Governments feel able to do, the main responsibility for maintaining the confidence of the people of Hong Kong, on which their prosperity and stability must depend, inevitably lies with the People's Republic of China? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the conclusions of the draft basic law committee on elections in Hong Kong are hardly likely to add to their confidence? Are we yet ready to say what we will do?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right in saying that China has an important part to play—although not

the only part—in maintaining confidence in Hong Kong, as do the Hong Kong people and as does Britain during our administration until the lease is terminated in 1997. Ideally, we obviously wish to agree with China improvements in democracy and increases in the democratic process in Hong Kong which could be continued through 1997. We shall continue to do our best by the people of Hong Kong and to observe the Sino-British agreement on the future of Hong Kong, in the belief that that is in the best interests of the future beyond 1997.

Ms. Short: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Ms. Short: Does the Prime Minister agree that the ambulance workers have overwhelming public support? Does she consider herself to be a democrat and, if so, why does she not listen to the view of the people and agree to binding arbitration so that this dispute can be brought to an end?

The Prime Minister: No. The ambulance people have their own negotiating body through which the negotiations should take place. As the hon. Lady is aware, this claim comes from last year when 84 per cent. of the people with whom the ambulance men work in the National Health Service settled at 6·5 and 6·8 per cent. Since then, the ambulance men have been offered an increase, so it is not the management which has not moved, but the ambulance men themselves.

Dame Jill Knight: Bearing in mind that the union leaders of the ambulance men have not always been straightforward in the matter, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is a question not only of a 9 per cent. increase on offer now, but of an offer that goes hack to April 1989? That should also be taken into consideration.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. The offer is backdated to April 1989 and for those who have still been working at their posts, considerable back-dated lump sums are to be picked up now, which vary from about £650 to about £1,400. They will be available when the ambulance men settle in respect of their back pay.

Mr. Boateng: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Boateng: Why does the Prime Minister continue to set her face, like stone, against the ambulance workers while giving a £40 million tax handout to the private medical insurance industry? If she were to fall under a bus tomorrow—and it would have to be a brave one—would she call for BUPA or for an ambulance man?

The Prime Minister: As I have already indicated, the ambulance men had an offer, according to where they work and their qualifications, of an increase in pay varying from 9 to 16·3 per cent. Many of them are still maintaining an accident and emergency service—and we honour them for it—although others are not. I should have thought that 9 to 16·3 per cent. was a very fair and reasonable offer.

Hill Farming

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
My right hon. Friends and I have now completed the annual review of economic conditions in the United Kingdom's less-favoured areas, in consultation with representatives of farming interests. The conclusion of this review was delayed until after the decision of the EC Council on the new hill livestock compensatory allowance conditions.
The review has shown that average net farm incomes of livestock producers in our hill and upland areas are forecast to fall in 1989–90, following an increase in Great Britain in the previous year. In particular, there is a reduction in the incomes of specialist sheep producers in the high hill areas, where the opportunities to diversify are limited. In farming as a whole, diversification is an important matter and in these areas such opportunities are not very wide.
I am therefore, pleased to announce that, subject to parliamentary approval, my colleagues and I are proposing to increase the rate of hill livestock compensatory allowance payable under the 1990 scheme on hardy breed ewes maintained in the severely disadvantaged parts of our less-favoured areas. The rate per hardy breed ewe will be increased by 75p, from £6·75 to £7.50 per animal. All other HLCA rates and conditions will remain unchanged in 1990. We shall be laying before Parliament a draft statutory instrument giving effect to this rate increase as soon as possible. The additional HLCA payments are expected to cost £5·2 million in a full year. This will increase total HLCA payments to about £125 million a year, which represents a very significant commitment to the hill and upland areas of the United Kingdom.
As I said in the early part of my statement, which some hon. Members may have missed, the reason for the lateness of this statement is the discussions in the European Community about changes in the HLCA regime —changes which are discriminatory against the United Kingdom because of the headage limits which are provided. We are therefore aware of the concern felt by the LFA livestock sector at the possible impact of the reduction in FEOGA funding of HLCAs based on the size of holding which I reported to the House on 22 November 1989. The House will remember that on that occasion I was able to report that we had made some significant improvements in what the Commission had proposed. One of those was that it would not apply this year but would start next year. But of course many in the industry are concerned to know now what it will mean for them then.
First, the changes in the European Community rules will not affect the 1990 HLCA scheme. From 1 January 1991 the mandatory European Community limit on payments of 1·4 livestock units per hectare will come into operation and will have some environmental benefits. We cannot anticipate at this stage the level of HLCAs or the other arrangements for 1991, but I can say that there is no question of automatically carrying through into our payment arrangements the impact of the new European Community ceilings on FEOGA funding. We do not believe that they should be related to the size of the

enterprise. Therefore, any changes would be made only after the needs of the LFA livestock sector had been assessed in the normal way following the autumn review later this year. This will be our review, on our terms, about our hill problems, and we will not automatically carry through the views that have been approved by the European Community contrary to our wishes.
Finally, there is the new provision in the European Community regulation which allows member states to include measures in the HLCA scheme to take account of environmental requirements. [Interruption.] Some Opposition Members do not find these matters important, but for those farmers in our most difficult areas they are vital. I hope that those farmers will notice the cavalier way in which the official Opposition, although not others, have received this most important announcement for their future.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I represent a hill farming area. I have been trying to hear the Secretary of State and cannot do so because of the noise from the Government Benches. I hope that Conservative Members will keep quiet so that I can find out how this statement affects my constituents.

Mr. Speaker: I will refrain from saying what I was going to say about that on behalf of the hon. Member. Let us hear the statement.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to say this, but I found the last remark of the Minister objectionable. Would you ask him to withdraw?

Mr. Speaker: Nothing out of order was said.

Mr. Gummer: The HLCAs already provide a significant contribution in terms of environmental benefits, but the British Government will be looking carefully over the next few months to see whether this should be made more specific. One of the things we seek in all the actions of the European Community is to make sure that what we do in farming is applied not only to the need to produce the food that the nation requires but to keeping up the countryside, which is one of the most important jobs of farmers and one in which they serve the country and the countryside well.

Dr. David Clark.: This is the first time ever that we have had an oral statement to the House on hill farming. My colleagues and I welcome it. We have a particular interest in upland areas and over the years we have often demonstrated that in the House. I only wish that the Minister's statement had had a little more substance in it, but I hope that it will become a precedent and that we will have an annual statement to the House on this vital subject. So that we might explore his proposals further, may I suggest to the Minister that he should initiate an early debate to find out whether we have constructive ideas to put forward from this side of the House?
I also welcome the increase in the hill livestock compensatory allowance for sheep from £6·75 to £7·50. As the House knows, the payment has been frozen for four years. However, the increase hardly keeps pace with inflation. Even with the increase to £7·50 the allowance is not in real terms at the same level as two years ago because


of spiralling inflation and interest rates running at 18 per cent. for many upland farmers who face many other economic difficulties.
Hon. Members may have missed the fact that there was no mention in the statement of HLCAs for cattle. That is a serious omission. The Minister spoke about environmental considerations. He has missed a great opportunity for extensification and improving the environment of upland areas by refusing to uprate the support for cattle. That is doubly so when beef rearers are facing falling prices for cattle because of the effect of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the Government's mishandling of that crisis.
Towards the end of his statement the Minister mentioned FEOGA payments. As the House knows, the level of those payments will be reduced. The Minister talked in strange terms when he said that he could not ensure that the system would be guaranteed. What does that mean? Will the Minister make up the shortfall of FEOGA contributions? Will he ensure that upland farmers get the guaranteed benefits which they need? If he did, he would have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House because we believe that upland farmers need much more support.
May I clarify a further point? The Minister mentioned that the scheme would cost £125 million per annum. In the Government's expenditure plans, which were published just five minutes ago, I noticed that the budgeted figure for next year is not £125 million but £120 million, a shortfall of £5 million. Will the Minister assure the House that the figure of £125 million which he has quoted today supersedes the Treasury figure published in the Government's annual expenditure plans? That is very important.
We welcome the Minister's statement, but it is most unimaginative. He said nothing about cattle or about direct income payments to farmers. He said nothing constructive about how he intended to improve the environment of upland areas. He said nothing about diversification or environmentally sensitive areas. In short, there was no single constructive proposal in the statement other than to increase HLCAs for sheep to take account of inflation. It is a most unsatisfactory statement.

Mr. Gummer: I think that you, Mr. Speaker, would have found it embarrassing had it been necesary to call me to order for speaking about environmentally sensitive areas when I was supposed to be making a statement on hill livestock compensatory allowances. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) gave a whole list of matters that I did not mention, which might have gone on ad infinitum. I did not mention them because they had nothing to do with my statement. Nevertheless, my statement was of considerable importance.
The figure in the estimates published today is £5 million less than the figure that I cited because the figure that I announced today represents an increase of £5 million. That does not need any underlining. Whereas before the proposal that I announced in my statement the cost would have been £120 million, it is now £125 million. I should have thought that it was obvious from my remarks that an extra £5 million was being made available. 
The hon. Member for South Shields also asked about the fact that the amounts have been frozen. Last year the real terms increase in farm incomes was 19 per cent. and it was therefore not appropriate to increase the payments.

This year, we estimate that there has been a fall in real terms in farm incomes, which overtakes the level of the payments.
I wanted to do something helpful, and I found the way in which the hon. Gentleman announced his opposition somewhat curmudgeonly. He should have said, "Look, we have been pushing you for this for some time and we are pleased that you have done it." It is sad that the Opposition's welcomes, which have become almost Spanish in their brevity, should be succeeded by a whole series of attacks on everything that the Government do.
The hon. Gentleman made a curious comment about bovine spongiform encephalopathy. I do not think that anyone else in Britain would share the hon. Gentleman's view. Most people accept that the Government have dealt with the matter extremely well. We have put the health of the public first and foremost and we have sought to help the farming community out of a difficult position. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on trying to make bricks out of no straw, but I fear that the bricks that he tried to produce would build no house.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Does my right hon. Friend understand that his statement is warmly welcomed, both in the House and especially in hill areas where the extra support was very necessary? Will he spend a good deal of his time in the next year or so explaining to the British public that if they wish to have high-quality, moderately priced food, on the one hand, and the maintenance of our glorious upland scenery, on the other, there is no better way of investing in those aims than by putting money where my right hon. Friend has put it today?

Mr. Gummer: With his considerable constituency and ministerial experience on this matter, my right hon. Friend has spoken the truth. No payment contributes more to the maintenance of the British countryside than a payment that ensures that we have sheep in our upland areas.

Mr. James Wallace: The Minister rightly identified the problems of fallen income last year and limitations on diversification. Is he aware of the impact on upland farmers of interest rates running in their teens and of the fact that the green pound is disadvantaging the farmers as they seek export opportunities? Clearly he is not, or he would not have given the industry this kick in the teeth—a paltry sum to be awarded to one sector and nothing for any of our other hill livestock producers. 
How far short of the ceiling allowed by the European Community does the increase that the Minister has announced fall? What steps does he propose to take to seek devaluation of the green pound in the sheep and beef sectors? In the past, the Highlands and Islands have had an enhanced rate for the HLCAs at times. Is that also to be the case under the present review?

Mr. Gummer: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is taking account of the special position of the Highlands and Islands, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased with the results. I am sorry that he should use such emotive language. I can only suggest that his words have less connection with the truth than with his desire to drive a division between himself and those of a different political


view. No one else will regard the statement as a kick in the teeth to the farmers. It is what has been asked for, and I am pleased to be able to deliver it.
I fight extremely hard for a change in the green pound rate, which I believe is the most important thing affecting the future of price fixing. I am extremely concerned that Britain should be discriminated against in this way. I am especially concerned that many of our colleagues in the European Community do not want such a change. I am even more concerned by those colleagues who do not believe it necessary, even in 1992. It is an uphill battle, but I am determined to win through because nothing is more important to the future of British farming than a fair deal that will enable us to compete fairly. There must be no distinction or differentation against us by the time we get to the single market. If we can do a great deal this year, I shall be best pleased.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: May I assure my right hon. Friend that his announcement on sheep will be well received in the western most parts of my constituency and, I suspect, all the way along the marches as well? However, will he clarify the position on cattle, because many of my hill farmers indulge in suckler calf rearing in the hills for pure-bred beef? Does he agree that pure-bred beef from suckler herds is the source of beef that is least exposed to any of the dangers of BSE in that the cattle are fed on hay, silage and grass? Does he further agree that a constant flow of pure-bred beef from the suckler herds can only be good for the beef industry in this country? Finally, if my right hon. Friend is not satisfied, would he care to come to my constituency to talk to the beef suckler herd producers because I am certain that they want the confidence that has been given to the sheep industry?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend would want me to remind the House that cattle producers in the less-favoured areas benefit from the 42 per cent. increase in the suckler cow rate. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to say that they are already dealt with under another aspect of the way in which we provide support. That is why I thought that it was rather unfair that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) did not mention that in his catalogue of woes. If the hon. Gentleman had wanted the public to feel that he was being properly balanced on this matter, I think that he would have mentioned that fact.
I should not like to make a distinction with my hon. Friend about BSE. The fact is that any beef that is bought in this country is entirely safe for human consumption and is very much better than the beef that is bought from many other countries.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) was being generous to him because the increase has not kept up with the rate of inflation and certainly does not meet the demands of the farmers? Will he answer my hon. Friend's question about hill cattle? Why has no announcement been made on hill cattle, which are important in my constituency and in the constituencies of many of my hon. Friends? Finally, does the Minister accept that his whole statement has been sullied by the overlay of his unique combination of impudence and arrogance?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is an expert in both those subjects, as the House no doubt remembers. I wonder why the hon. Gentleman did not ask for a cut in the HLCAs last year when there had been a 19 per cent. increase in real terms in the incomes of the farmers concerned. He did not ask for a cut because he knew that the rates are not fixed on a year-by-year basis. They are fixed properly to compensate for people's needs at any particular time. The hon. Gentleman is in his usual position of always asking for more money without mentioning the bill that has to be paid by the taxpayer if that extra money is to be spent. The cattle producers in the LFAs have not had a similar or parallel increase because we thought that, in view of the 42 per cent. increase in the suckler cow rate, it was more important to concentrate our aid on the sheep sector.

Mr. William Hague: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the House welcomes his firm stance in European negotiations in recent weeks? Does he also accept that there will continue to be grave anxiety about the future of hill livestock farming in the uplands of Britain? Will he take this opportunity to re-emphasise the Government's commitment to maintain the value of support for upland farming in future, pointing out that such support provides the best value for money of any environmental spending?

Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend. He shows his close understanding of the problem when he emphasises that the future is of the greatest anxiety to the industry. That is why I was surprised that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), did not emphasise the industry's advantages in having an assurance that the decisions on next year's HLCA payments will be based on the needs of our industry and will not be affected by the changes that the FEOGA funding has brought about. That is an important assessment for the Government to make, so far in advance of deciding the rates. It shows our support for an industry which, above all others, maintains the countryside.

Mr. John D. Taylor: While one welcomes any statement by Her Majesty's Government that support for hill farmers will be increased, we require clarification. The statement given to us says:
incomes of livestock producers in our hill and upland areas are forecast to fall in 1989-1990, following an increase in Great Britain in the previous year … my colleagues and I are proposing to increase the rate of hill livestock compensatory allowance payable under the 1990 scheme on hardy breed ewes maintained in the severely disadvantaged parts of our LFAs. Subject to parliamentary approval, the rate per hardy breed ewe will be increased by 75p, from £6.75 to £7.50 per animal—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member ask a question?

Mr. Taylor: The Minister said that that represented a
significant commitment to the hill and upland areas of the United Kingdom.
In my experience during the past 10 years, the European Community recognises the difference between Great Britain and the United Kingdom. As the Minister referred to Great Britain and the United Kingdom in the same sentence, will he tell the House whether his increase applies to the United Kingdom or only to Great Britain.

Mr. Gummer: It is a United Kingdom increase.

Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of my constituents on his announcement today, which comes at a difficult time for hill farmers, particularly those who farm sheep? Is he aware that the North York Moors national park committee will shortly launch a scheme designed to combine essential support for sheep farming in the LFAs with much-needed environmental protection? Does he agree that the future of our farming industry, supported by taxpayers, can be assured only if we can combine the need to support the farmer with care of the environment? The HLCAs are an important part of that package.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to underline the close connection between the production of food and the maintenance of a beautiful countryside. The British countryside is as it is because it is farmed. Almost 80 per cent. of Britain's land area is farmed. We must increasingly make sure that farming is done in an environmentally acceptable way. Most farmers already farm in that manner, but some need particular help to continue to do so. The Government are determined to provide that help.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister rightly praised upland farmers for the way in which they tend our countryside. He then referred to their difficulty in obtaining alternative incomes. Will he consider carefully the possibility of improving access to the countryside by allowing millions of people in our cities who want to walk freely in the countryside to do so and giving farmers compensation for allowing people to walk on their land? Is he aware that the national parks have powers to enter into access agreements, but that, apart from the Peak District national park, they rarely do so? Will he encourage the development of access agreements so that people in the towns can walk in the countryside and people who farm in upland areas receive monetary income from it?

Mr. Gummer: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a close interest in this matter. I spent yesterday in the hillsides of Scotland and the problem there is that increased access, which is now a feature of many parts of Scotland, has a deleterious effect on the ability of farmers to look after their stock and to protect the countryside. It is not always possible to increase access without causing considerable damage. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of that because of the problems encountered in the environmentally sensitive area of the South Downs. 
It is not always possible to increase access and to regard it as a means of extra income. I notice that that income will be paid for not by the people who have access but by the taxpayer. There is a certain competition for use of the countryside, and the right balance is always necessary.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Welsh hill farmers will greatly welcome the statement on LFA compensatory amounts and the statement on the green pound? Will he confirm that in future negotiations with continental producers he will ensure that British lamb from LFAs has an open market on the continent?

Mr. Gummer: We must stop any repetition of the situation in which British lamb, which is the best in Europe, was excluded from markets that it had taken over because it was the best. I am pleased to say that, in large measure, our colleagues are accepting British lamb as they

should. We shall continue to ensure that that happens. In the negotiations on the green pound I have stated my case extremely strongly, and I shall continue to do so. In the end, however, I must have a majority of the Twelve and a proposition from the Commission.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Minister agree that we must consider not only the quality of our countryside, but the quality of life of its inhabitants? The fragility of the economic base in many of our rural areas means that support is necessary to retain not only that economic life, but the social and cultural heritage of the countries of the United Kingdom. Will he top up the EC payments on HLCAs to ensure that there is a good level of support for our hill farmers?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman's comments are entirely in line with my thinking, and that is why I have sought hard to look carefully at the disadvantaged areas. There are various ways in which we can help those areas, not least by our environmental payments and by the extensions and improvements that have led to the ESAs. I hope that there will be further extensions in the future. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the ESAs and their subsequent extension will benefit parts of the Principality, as they will the rest of the United Kingdom.
We must ensure that the money goes in the right direction. My announcement today is one way by which we can ensure that, but we shall continue to look for other means of achieving that aim. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that I take a close personal interest in ensuring that the most difficult farming areas of Britain are properly supported and that there is confidence for the future. That is why I made a statement about the parameters of our decisions next year. That statement has not been paralleled previously as it commits us in such a way that previous Governments were not prepared to be committed.

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Scottish hill farmers, the mountain farmers—I have 2,000 sq miles of mountain in my constituency—will welcome his statement. If the environment of the Scotish Highlands is to be properly looked after, the balance to which my right hon. Friend drew attention must continue. The farmers are the best people to look after that balance.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the problems in the Highlands are largely brought about by uncertainty? Much of what he has said today will remove that uncertainty, including his pledge to look after farmers' interests. His pledges on other matters will go a long way to ridding the public of certain worries that they have had for some time.

Mr. Gummer: I spent yesterday with Lord Sanderson of Bowden, who is the Minister in the Scottish Office responsible for agriculture. On my visit a little north of my hon. Friend's constituency I looked at many of the problems that he has mentioned, and I confirm what he has said.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Does the Minister agree that the oddity of the statement and its timing is contributed to by the fact that we have not had a parallel statement on Scotland, despite the fact that, proportionately, the Scottish interest in this matter is much greater than elsewhere? Does he also agree that he has no right to speak about this as an all-British matter if


he is unable to answer the question put by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) about whether the premium within the Highlands and Islands Development Board, currently running at 58p, will be maintained? That information is crucial. Will he kindly get it?
Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that his reference to the environmental benefits of reducing the headage in many LFAs is by no means undisputed? If one reduces the headage one also decreases the number of people living in many communities dependent upon sheep. There is nothing worse for the environment than for living communities to be killed.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. That is why I did not say it, did not dream of saying it and would not have said it. I said perfectly clearly that the present system has considerable environmental benefits. We fought hard to ensure that the headage limits of which the hon. Gentleman speaks were not so low as to have the effects that he feared. Because we fought it, the figure rose to 1·4 rather than the much lower one that we had before. I went on to say that I hoped that under our new freedom we would be able to make those payments even more environmentally beneficial. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would support me in that.
This is a United Kingdom statement because the changes I mentioned cover the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State for Scotland was here to listen to the statement. I promise the hon. Gentleman that the points he made have been taken into account, and changes commensurate with them are being made by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Paul Marland: I extend a warm welcome to my right hon. Friend's statement. The increase in payments for hardy ewes has two benefits. First, as other Members have said, it will help to ensure a better standard of living for those who live in the hills. Secondly, it will ensure the foundation stock, for which many hardy ewes are used. They are the pure breeds from which commercial herds are developed. For both those reasons, I welcome the first part of the statement.
With regard to the second part of the statement, I am glad that my right hon. Friend will stand against the flock limitation sizes imposed by the Community. I hope that that will be a forerunner and that he will persuade the Treasury to open its purse, be more generous and maintain the payments for all the flocks of this country's farmers.

Mr. Gummer: We are committed to ensuring that when the decisions are made next year they will be made on the basis of the economic position affecting the less-favoured areas and the farmers who receive those payments rather than the impact of the changes in the European Community. Therefore, we make the decision and nobody else.
As for the stock position of the hardy ewes, my hon. Friend is perfectly right: the rest of Britain depends considerably on the quality of stock produced in the upland areas. I pay considerable tribute to those farmers who work in extremely difficult conditions to keep the countryside as we would want it and produce the food that we need.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Why has it taken so long—since last October—for the

Government to come forward with this paltry increase which will be greeted with dismay in hill farming communities in Scotland? Can the Minister confirm that the increase of £5 million—from £120 million to £125 million—is an increase of 4 per cent. in public expenditure? That must be a cut in real terms in the livelihood of the hill farmers because of the increasing costs that they face. Will he also confirm that he had it within his power to increase the ceiling from £6·75 to £10 per head? Hill farmers will see this statement as demonstrating only a lukewarm commitment to the continuation of the vital HLCA system of support which provides such an important livelihood to the farming community in Scotland.

Mr. Gummer: That is not the view of the hill farming constituencies. I am sorry that, although the hon. Gentleman has sat through our discussion, he has not appreciated the points that I made.
The reason that the statement could not be made earlier was simply that the Common Market had not made a decision about the HLCAs. I said that I would not make any decison about the British position until I knew what would happen in Britain this year. That was because I needed to fight the European Community's proposition that its new proposals would come into operation this year. I managed to succeed in pushing them off so that they did not come into operation until next year. I then started the negotiations and discussions to prepare for a figure for this year. It took us less time to produce the figures from the starting date than it normally does.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall allow questions to continue for a further five minutes. [Interruption.] Order. It is my usual practice to ensure that Back-Bench Members have twice as much time as the Front-Bench spokesmen.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be usual, after 40 minutes on a statement, for you to remind the House that today is an Opposition day?

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for the statement. I do not make such decisions. I always endeavour to give Back-Bench Members twice as much time as the Front-Bench spokesmen on important statements.

Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Points of order take up time, and I shall have to make allowances for that.

Mr. Allen: Is it not a fact that, since live television coverage finished at 4 pm, these proceedings can be wound up quickly?

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman's point of order need my immediate attention?

Mr. Skinner: Yes. 
When you, Mr. Speaker, receive applications for statements from the Government and for private notice


questions from the Opposition, you look at them carefully. Did it cross your mind today that the Opposition's ten-minute Bill in support of the ambulance workers would have been seen on prime time television were it not for the Government's statement?

Mr. Speaker: I do not hear such arguments when Government business follows.

Mr. Alan Amos: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that to the EEC British hill farmers are the forgotten men of agriculture, despite the fact that they produce high-quality meat and look after the environment? Will he accept an invitation to visit my constituency where I can assure him that he will receive every possible support in his continued battle against EEC discrimination against my hill farmers?

Mr. Gummer: I have been to my hon. Friend's constituency before, and I shall be happy to go again. I very much have in mind the farmers who work so diligently in his constituency when I come to fight such battles. We have done much better than people thought that we would, but we have not yet done well enough because we do not wish to have that discrimination. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that it is notable that the last few exchanges did not take place when the public could have seen them because they would have been ashamed of people who do not care about hill farming.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that hill farmers have existed recently on incomes well below those of lowland farmers? Since farmers' margins on Dartmoor have become so slender that they are invisible and they are nearly living on fresh air, will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will revise hill livestock compensatory allowances at far more regular intervals?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased that we have made the changes that we have made today, but I cannot promise to review the allowances more regularly. However, when we review them next we shall do so on the basis of the figures from our own industry and not take into account automatically the changes in FEOGA funding, which would have meant a great deal of discrimination against British farmers.

Mr. David Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the importance of this matter to all those concerned about the countryside in our national parks which have just celebrated their 40th anniversary? Is he also aware that farmers in the Exmoor national park in my constituency face not only income difficulties but considerable problems caused by damage from the recent

storms? Will he do all that he can to diminish discrimination from the EEC in the support for United Kingdom producers?

Mr. Gummer: Non-discrimination is the fundamental right of all British farmers, because they can compete effectively on equal and fair terms, but they cannot accept a situation in which they receive less for their products than their competitors and those competitors receive support for exporting their products into our markets.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: The farmers of Derbyshire welcome the statement and I welcome the opportunity to say so. Will my right hon. Friend take on board their professional view that sheep are an important part of conservation in the upland areas and that without them there is more likely to be erosion, the growth of bracken, and other unacceptable deterioration?

Mr. Gummer: That is why I sought in my announcement today to help sheep farmers in particular.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: My right hon. Friend's announcement will be greatly welcomed. Is he aware that thousands of people throughout the country walk the uplands and enjoy the countryside? His statement referred to environmental measures to help farmers and those who use the uplands for recreation. Will he say what he has in mind?

Mr. Gummer: We shall be looking at circumstances in which overstocking has the opposite effect to that achieved by the vast majority of sheep farmers, who help the environment, to see whether there are ways in which we can prevent that overstocking.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Hill farmers in my constituency will warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I take this opportunity to ask him to consider extending the North Peak environmentally sensitive area to take in the village of Marsden in my constituency, where there is a serious problem with sheep wandering into people's gardens, and in some cases into their homes. Is he aware that provisions within the ESA would give hill farmers an incentive to take 25 per cent. of sheep off the hills during winter, which could be of significant help to the residents of Marsden village?

Mr. Gummer: Obviously there is an interrelationship between HLCA payments and environmentally sensitive areas. I shall examine the point my hon. Friend makes, hut I hope that the villagers of Marsden, like so many others in the rest of the country, will note the degree to which the Opposition do not seem to care what happens to hill farmers.

Points of Order

Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a few moments, we shall be asked to consider a ten-minute Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). It is my submission that that Bill should not be proceeded with, for a number of reasons.
If you, Mr. Speaker, consult page 464 of "Erskine May", you will read that the normal rule applying to ten-minute Bills is that
a private Member may not move for leave to bring in a Bill of which the main object is to create a charge by way of taxation or expenditure.
A footnote explains that, under a ruling made in 1985,
Even the use of the word 'Finance' in the short title has been refused.
That ruling resulted from a decision made earlier that a ten-minute Bill could not be proceeded with because it sought to raise money.
The word "pay" in the Bill's description could be construed as a form of expenditure. My first reason for objecting to the Bill's consideration relates to its short title, which, because it refers to Ambulance Staff Pay Determination, is not permissible. Secondly, the mention of the appointment of a pay board in the Bill's description again endorses the belief that it seeks the expenditure of revenue by the creation of a pay board, and for that reason the Bill cannot be countenanced.
My third reason concerns the operation of the Bill. I refer right hon. and hon. Members to Hansard for 5 March 1929, when there was a debate on a ten-minute Bill whose subject was superannuation. A former hon. Member, a Mr. Kelly, raised that issue because in those days a civil servant who was asked to serve in one of the colonies lost his entitlement to superannuation payments during the time that he was away. Mr. Kelly sought to introduce a ten-minute Bill to correct that situation. On that occasion, Mr. Speaker listened for a few moments, and then said:
It is the question of the exact operation of the Bill if it becomes an Act of Parliament. Probably he"— 
the civil servant in question —
would be entitled to a larger pension if the Bill passed.
Later he said:
I could not allow a private Member to bring in a Bill which increases the charge on the Exchequer".—[Official Report, 5 March 1929; Vol. 226, c. 218.]
The Bill about which we may shortly hear would, by inference, commit the House to expenditure by setting up a pay board and, because the description of the measure refers to annual increases in ambulance staff pay, would more or less commit us to increases in staff pay. I submit, therefore, that, under the precedent which I have cited, the Bill cannot be proceeded with.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker:: Order. An important matter has been raised with me—[Interruption.]—and I trust that hon. Members will allow me to deal with it. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) for having given me notice of his intention to raise it because that has enabled me to look up the precedents, as he has done.
I am satisfied that the main purpose of the Bill about which we are to hear is the appointment of a board. However, the hon. Member is correct in saying that, if leave is given for the introduction of the proposed Bill, its text should not have as its main object the creation of a charge. The Public Bill Office may be relied on to ensure that that will not be the case. [HON. MEMBERS: "On a point of order."] Order. I cannot see how there can be anything further to that point of order, with which I have dealt.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. After most of us have left the House and have been long forgotten—that is, if any of us have been noticed in the meantime—[Interruption.] You, Mr. Speaker, will be remembered. I am not seeking to ingratiate myself. I am not an ingratiating sort of person. You will be remembered, Mr. Speaker, as the Back-Benchers' Speaker, the tribune of the Back Bencher. You will also rightly be remembered for being concerned about the dignity of the House. Governments and Oppositions are powerful machines, but from time to time they are a little clumsy and allow issues to pass by. On such occasions, it is the Back Bencher who can sometimes have the opportunity to bring forward vital issues. One need only mention——

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the issue that the hon. Member is raising?

Mr. Marlow: The issue before us is the question of the ten-minute rule Bill, the jewel in the crown of the Back Bencher's armoury. For most of the time, life for a Back Bencher is splendid, but is dependent on chance, others and the ballot. The ten-minute Bill allows the humble Back Bencher who is persistent the opportunity in prime time to bring an important measure before the House of Commons. That right has traditionally been reserved for the Back Bencher. An arduous process is involved ——

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member is seeking to allege that members of the Opposition are not Back Benchers, that is not correct.

Mr. Marlow: I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that it is an arduous process. The hon. Member concerned must go to an office, a garret, an attic above the Chamber and spend a sleepless night tossing and turning about among yellowing folios, concerned lest he might lose his opportunity with a ten-minute Bill and another hon. Member might—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think there is any matter of order in the point that the hon. Member is now raising. The same procedures must be carried out whether hon. Members sit on the Government or Opposition side. I think we had better get on.

Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order There can be no further point of order on the issue. I have given the hon. Member a considered ruling.

Ambulance Staff Pay Determination

Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the appointment of a pay board to supervise a pay mechanism for annual increases in ambulance staff pay; and for connected purposes.
This afternoon, if it chooses, the House can divide on the Bill, but the public have already given their verdict on who has won the debate on the ambulance dispute. Across Britain—in opinion polls, in petitions, in donations and in today's rallies—the public have demonstrated how they wish the House to vote. If only the majority party would listen to the public. If those taking part in today's rallies had been in eastern Europe, Conservative Members would regard them as heroes for expressing their views.
The members of the public who attended those rallies were prompted by two motives. The first was to show support for the ambulance crews on whose skills in saving lives they depend in an emergency—skills that we all saw in action only last week, when crews who had not been paid since before Christmas turned out to tend the casualties of the gale-force storms. Let me warn Conservative Members, however, that a second motive also drove so many members of the public to take part in the demonstrations: impatience with a Government who had begun the dispute too afraid to go to arbitration, and who are now too stubborn to sit around the table and negotiate with staff unless those staff surrender first.
That impatience is now mixed with incomprehension at the fact that, throughout the five months of the dispute, the Secretary of State has not once sat down with the staff side in an effort to find a solution. Today's demonstration will have been worth while if it persuades him to take 15 minutes out of his time to do that now.
The dispute is now in its 20th week. There are different ways of measuring the cost of such a prolonged dispute. There is, for instance, the cost of human suffering—the suffering of accident victims who have been left longer in pain and distress before being attended to by staff without adequate training; the suffering of elderly and infirm patients who have been denied treatment at the day care centres that they have been unable to reach since September. It does not help those people for us to argue about who is to blame for the dispute. The only question that will help them is: who will solve the dispute?
There are, of course, other ways of measuring the cost. There is the price that has been paid in the morale of ambulance staff, who have seen their work devalued and their commitment exploited. Among the casualties of the dispute are the ambulance staff who have left the service and will not return when it is over. Among them is Malcolm Woollard, who last year received the "Ambulance Person of the Year" award.
Mr. Woollard is known to Conservative Members, because six years ago he worked for 17 hours on the shift that was called to the Grand hotel in Brighton. At the time he did not feel that his work was properly valued, because he had had the opportunity of an exchange of views with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who has just addressed the Chamber at such length. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman spoke more crisply, saying to Mr. Woollard:
At least it makes a change from standing around at the county show.

In the second month of the dispute, Mr. Woollard left the ambulance service for a job that pays him 50 per cent. more for working fewer hours. The longer that the dispute is allowed to continue, the greater will be the loss of skilled staff, and the lower will be the morale of those who remain.
It is also possible, however, to put a cash figure on the cost of the dispute. When we debated it three weeks ago, I put the total bill for police and Army cover at£10 million. It is now clear that my estimate was too cautious. It is evident from figures that I have since obtained that the cost of cover by the police alone now exceeds£13 million, while the bill for Army cover must now be well over£5 million. The Health Service is now paying the police and the Army£2 million a week to do a job that ambulance staff can do better. There is a cruel irony in that figure:£2 million is exactly 1 per cent. of the total ambulance pay bill.

Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Nothing out of order has occurred.

Mr. King: A speech on a ten-minute Bill is supposed to describe the workings of the Bill, not a lot of emotion.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is in order.

Mr. Cook: As I was saying,£2 million is exactly 1 per cent. of the total pay bill. In other words, in the time since the House last debated the dispute—three weeks ago—the Government have spent on makeshift cover as much as it would take to improve the offer by the amount that might bring back full cover. If the money to settle the dispute is there, why is it not used to settle it rather than to prolong it?
The object of the Bill is to extend to ambulance staff the same pay mechanism as is currently enjoyed by people in the other emergency services. The Secretary of State has been unable to sell to the constituents of any hon. Member the notion that ambulance staff are not entitled to the same treatment as people in the other emergency services because only one in 10 of their calls is an emergency. In the recent debate the Secretary of State, to confirm that claim, referred me to figures collected in York. I have taken his advice: I have looked up the York figures. Having done so, I have to tell the Secretary of State that those figures do not support his claim that only one in 10 of ambulance calls is an emergency. On the contrary, the figures show emergency patients, on the basis of the Secretary of State's own estimate, as representing one in five of all patients collected by the ambulance service, and, in terms of all mileage covered by the ambulance service, emergency calls take up not one in 10, or one in five, but more than one in four of all ambulance miles.
It is now clear that people in the ambulance service spend an even higher proportion of their time on emergencies than people in the other two emergency services. Therefore, there can be no reasonable grounds for denying them the same pay mechanism as is available to the people in the other two services. As someone once said,
All three deserve to have their pay negotiations put outside the arena of industrial dispute by being given firm and automatic linkage to national price or wage rises.
That someone was, of course, the Prime Minister, on whose behalf a letter in those terms was sent to two


ambulance men who had written to her. She was right then to recognise the logic of their case; she is wrong today in refusing to admit that the same logic still stands.
The Bill would give effect to that commitment by the Prime Minister. It would provide the pay mechanism that we know is supported by 40 out of 45 chief ambulance officers—the same local management to which the Secretary of State keeps promising local flexibility. It would give ambulance staff a guarantee that they would receive a fair award. More important, it would give public and patients a guarantee that this vital emergency service need never again be disrupted by dispute.
Today, the voice of the ambulance staff has been heard in rallies in every major town. That voice cannot be heard in this Chamber, so I shall let it speak for itself in the words of an ambulance man from Cheshire who wrote to me to describe the emergency work that deserves this pay mechanism. He said:
I have been assaulted, more than once, but once sufficiently to be paid a sum of Criminal Injuries Compensation; I have disarmed a youth of a razor blade with which he had slashed himself and his girl-friend; I have made my way across roofs in pouring rain to reach an injured person; … I watched a baby burn to death in a motorway crash and still had to go on functioning to tend the other injured, including the mother.
I don't care whether you think my job is dangerous. I only think it is important and valuable to the community, and I will go on doing it whether they give me 11·4 per cent. or 6-5 per cent. or nothing at all.
That ambulance man does not deserve nothing at all; that ambulance man deserves a just settlement and a fair pay mechanism. On this day when the public have demonstrated their support for the ambulance men's claim, I challenge Conservative Members if they dare to mark it by voting down a Bill that would provide a just settlement.

Sir George Young: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman seek to oppose the Bill?

Sir George Young: Mr. Speaker——

Hon. Members: Shame.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was heard in silence.

Sir George Young: All Members of the House will want this industrial dispute brought to an early close. All Members have elderly or ill constituents who have been affected by the disruption over the past 20 weeks. Many of us are worried about the impact of the dispute on the volunteers who are trying to keep the service going and we are worried about the impact of the dispute on the families of the ambulance staff.
There is another matter on which I hope that we are all agreed. I should like to place on record my appreciation for the skills, courage and commitment of the ambulance men. That is not in dispute this afternoon. What is in dispute is the best way of recognising those qualities, which are shared by others in the NHS who work shoulder to shoulder with the ambulance men and who also display skills, courage and commitment. The solutions that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has put forward

to the House will not heal the divisions in the NHS as he suggests that they would. They will simply sow new divisions in the NHS to replace any that he may have resolved.
The Opposition have repeatedly maintained that industrial disputes are best settled by employers and unions sitting around a table. They have often maintained that Parliament has no useful role to play by passing legislation. Today they have stood on their head—they now think that legislation will resolve the industrial dispute. It is wrong to raise the hopes of the ambulance men and their families, the ill and the general public by implying that the Bill holds the key to peace in the NHS.
Let me explain why. Pay review boards, as proposed by the hon. Member for Livingston, have been set up to settle the pay and conditions of professional staff who, first and foremost, have pledged renunciation of industrial action. That is why the Government gave the nurses a pay review board—something denied to them by the Labour party. In the dispute, the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the National Union of Public Employees —the unions representing the staff—have never suggested that they are prepared to forgo industrial action. They have not put that on the table because they cannot deliver it. Given the history of industrial disputes in which those two unions have been involved—in 1978–79, 1982–83, 1988 and the current year—it would be naive to believe that those two unions would ever forgo the strike weapon. Therefore, the first condition for a pay review board is not met. There is no equity in offering 22,000 people who have chosen to take industrial action arrangements that are confined to groups that do not strike.
The message that the House should send out today is that those who are involved in the dispute should return to the negotiating table. As we heard during Question Time, 84 per cent. of NHS staff settled their pay last year without recourse to industrial action—840,000 workers settled at less than 7 per cent. and 500,000 nurses received a 6.8 per cent. increase. Against that background, how does one begin to justify substantially higher pay rises for another group in the NHS? The offer on the table already gives salary increases of between 9 and 16 per cent. over the next 18 months, depending on location and on the extent of paramedical training. By the end of last month, the back pay available to those in dispute already totalled between£680 and£1,450. In London, the new rates offer between 10·9 and 16·3 per cent. and increases of 22 per cent. in overtime rates. In addition to those increases, there are, on the table, flexible local arrangements to help recruitment and to reward local productivity and other service improvements as well as a joint review of the 1986 salaries structure and a national framework for staff with intermediate medical skills.
With that on the table, and against the background of the settlements that I listed, I see nothing dishonourable in the unions saying, "Yes, we would like to return to the negotiating table. We would like to talk in particular about local bargaining"—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to stop the running commentary.

Sir George Young: I see nothing dishonourable in the unions saying that, and that they are interested especially in talking about local bargaining, which gives the


opportunity for yet higher offers. That is the way forward, unlike this exercise in political opportunism, which seeks to raise the temperature when it should be lowered.
The Labour party never offered arbitration to NHS workers in dispute. It never offered a pay mechanism for ambulance staff. It did not even pay the ambulance staff as well as they are paid now, even before the present offer. For those reasons, I urge the House to oppose the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 268.

Division No. 55]
[4.39 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Fisher, Mark


Allen, Graham
Flannery, Martin


Alton, David
Flynn, Paul


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Armstrong, Hilary
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foster, Derek


Ashton, Joe
Foulkes, George


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fraser, John


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fyfe, Maria


Barron, Kevin
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Beggs, Roy
George, Bruce


Beith, A. J.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bell, Stuart
Gould, Bryan


Bidwell, Sydney
Graham, Thomas


Blair, Tony
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Blunkett, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Boateng, Paul
Harman, Ms Harriet


Boyes, Roland
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bradley, Keith
Haynes, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Henderson, Doug


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hinchliffe, David


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Buchan, Norman
Hogg, N. (C'nauld amp; Kilsyth)


Caborn, Richard
Home Robertson, John


Callaghan, Jim
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howells, Geraint


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hoyle, Doug


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hume, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Illsley, Eric


Clay, Bob
Ingram, Adam


Clelland, David
Janner, Greville


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Barry (Alyn amp; Deeside)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys MÔn)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Corbett, Robin
Kennedy, Charles


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kilfedder, James


Cousins, Jim
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Crowther, Stan
Kirkwood, Archy


Cryer, Bob
Lamond, James


Cummings, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cunningham, Dr John
Litherland, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Darling, Alistair
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Loyden, Eddie


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
McCartney,Ian


Dewar, Donald
McFall, John


Dixon, Don
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dobson, Frank
McLeish, Henry


Doran, Frank
Maclennan, Robert


Duffy, A. E. P.
McNamara, Kevin


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McWilliam, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Madden, Max


Eastham, Ken
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marek, Dr John


Fatchett, Derek
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fearn, Ronald
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)





Maxton, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Meacher, Michael
Short, Clare


Meale, Alan
Sillars, Jim


Michael, Alun
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, C. (Isl'ton amp; F'bury)


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Morley, Elliot
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Snape, Peter


Mowlam, Marjorie
Soley, Clive


Mudd, David
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mullin, Chris
Stott, Roger


Murphy, Paul
Strang, Gavin


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Straw, Jack


O'Brien, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Turner, Dennis


Patchett, Terry
Vaz, Keith


Pendry, Tom
Wallace, James


Pike, Peter L.
Walley, Joan


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wareing, Robert N.


Prescott, John
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Primarolo, Dawn
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Randall, Stuart
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wilson, Brian


Richardson, Jo
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rogers, Allan
Worthington, Tony


Rooker, Jeff



Ruddock, Joan



Sedgemore, Brian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. David Winnick.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alexander, Richard
Carrington, Matthew


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Chapman, Sydney


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Chope, Christopher


Amess, David
Churchill, Mr


Amos, Alan
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Arbuthnot, James
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Colvin, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Conway, Derek


Atkins, Robert
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Couchman, James


Baldry, Tony
Cran, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Critchley, Julian


Batiste, Spencer
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Curry, David


Bellingham, Henry
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd amp; Spald'g)


Benyon, W.
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Day, Stephen


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dicks, Terry


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dorrell, Stephen


Body, Sir Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dunn, Bob


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Durant, Tony


Boswell, Tim
Eggar, Tim


Bottomley, Peter
Emery, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Evans, David (Welwyn hatf'd)


Bowis, John
Evennett, David


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fallon, Michael


Bright, Graham
Fishburn, John Dudley


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fookes, Dame Janet


Brown, Michael (Brigg amp; Cl't's)
Forman, Nigel


Browne, John (Winchester)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Forth, Eric


Buck, Sir Antony
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Budgen, Nicholas
Fox, Sir Marcus


Burns, Simon
Franks, Cecil


Burt, Alistair
Freeman, Roger


Butcher, John
French, Douglas


Butler, Chris
Gale, Roger


Butterfill, John
Gardiner, George


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Garel-Jones, Tristan






Gill, Christopher
Mills, Iain


Goodlad, Alastair
Miscampbell, Norman


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Monro, Sir Hector


Gow, Ian
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moss, Malcolm


Gregory, Conal
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Grist, Ian
Neubert, Michael


Ground, Patrick
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Grylls, Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hague, William
Norris, Steve


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hanley, Jeremy
Page, Richard


Hannam, John
Paice, James


Harris, David
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Haselhurst, Alan
Patnick, Irvine


Hawkins, Christopher
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hayward, Robert
Patten, Rt Hon John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hind, Kenneth
Portillo, Michael


Holt, Richard
Powell, William (Corby)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Redwood, John


Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Irvine, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Irving, Sir Charles
Rost, Peter


Jack, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jackson, Robert
Ryder, Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sayeed, Jonathan


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knox, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shersby, Michael


Latham, Michael
Sims, Roger


Lee, John (Pendle)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lilley, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Squire, Robin


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stern, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stevens, Lewis


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maclean, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sumberg, David


Madel, David
Summerson, Hugo


Major, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thorne, Neil


Mates, Michael
Thornton, Malcolm


Maude, Hon Francis
Thurnham, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Mellor, David
Tredinnick, David


Miller, Sir Hal
Trippier, David





Trotter, Neville
Wells, Bowen


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wheeler, Sir John


Viggers, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Wiggin, Jerry


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Wilshire, David


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Wood, Timothy


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Yeo, Tim


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Waller, Gary



Walters, Sir Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr.Nicholas Bennett and


Watts, John
Mr. Tim Devlin.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Against the background of which you are aware, may I ask whether there has been any request from the Department of Energy to explain the eyebrow-raising matter of the sponsorship of a senior civil servant, Mr. Bernard Ingham, in very extraordinary circumstances by British Nuclear Fuels, in the light of the answer that was given yesterday?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman raised that matter yesterday and I did look into it. I understand that he has received a letter from the Secretary of State.

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw your attention to the title of today's ten-minute Bill. You will note that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) asked leave to bring in a Bill specifically 
for the appointment of a pay board to supervise a pay mechanism for annual increases in ambulance staff pay".
I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, first, to "Erskine May", page 464—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this not a re-run of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) has already said? I have ruled about that.

Mr. Brown: My point of order has nothing whatever to do with that raised by my hon. Friend. My point of order relates to something that occurred during the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston, which happens, by coincidence, to appear on the same page, page 464.
I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that "Erskine May" states, in the third paragraph on that page,
After a brief explanatory statement of the objects of the bill"—
and then there is a footnote, No. 5, which reads:
The mover should explain what the bill will do".
There is then a further reference to a House of Commons debate in 1987. You gave the following ruling after the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) had presented the National Health Service (Provision of Services) Bill:
in making an application to bring in a Bill, it is necessary to describe what the Bill contains."—[Official Report, 16 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1112.]
1 draw your attention again, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that there were no details in the hon. Gentleman's application as to how the pay board was to be constituted, how it was to be supervised, who was to appoint it and to whom it should be accountable. I submit that that was a gross abuse of the procedure for presenting a ten-minute Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened with care to what the hon. Member said and I gave a considered ruling, as I had had notice of his hon. Friend's point of order. I have


nothing further to add to that. In any event, the matter is now irrelevant, because leave has not been given to bring in the Bill.

Mr. Graham Riddick.: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you assure me that if I queue up for hours and hours to get the right to present a ten-minute Bill, it will not then be hijacked by a Cabinet Minister and presented by that Minister?

Mr. Speaker: I hope that it will not be. I shall be on the hon. Gentleman's side.

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to look at what happened during the ten-minute Bill, particularly the raising of a point of order in the middle of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)? It is a new development, as far as I am aware, for points of order to be allowed in the middle of a speech on a ten-minute Bill. It was not a genuine point of order; it was done because the points being made by my hon. Friend were effective and not liked by Conservative Members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes time out of the Opposition's debate.
When a point of order is raised, it is necessary that the Chair hears what it is. If it needs immediate attention, the occupant of the Chair must deal with it. That was not so today and I ruled it out of order.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a mercifully brief point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that there is something undignified about somebody with the awesome responsibilities of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) having to spend the night tossing and turning in the Public Bill Office. My point, which you may want to discuss through the usual channels, is that Standing Order No. 19 says that you have the power to permit, if you think fit, a brief explanatory statement from an hon. Member who makes an application to bring in a ten-minute Bill. May I put it to you, as the Back Benchers' tribune and on behalf of all Back Benchers, that in future you use your discretion only when it is a Back Bencher, and not a Front Bencher, who is trying to use this great privilege of the House?

Mr. Speaker: The limit for a ten-minute Bill is 10 minutes.

Orders of the Day — OPPOSITION DAY

[4TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Orders of the Day — Poverty

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
As we have had a late start on this motion, I appeal to the House for brief speeches from the Front and the Back Benches.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move, That this House, noting that there are now some 3 million more people forced to live on or below the poverty line than in 1979, noting that total tax cuts over the last decade have been more than paid for by benefit cuts in excess of 20 billion pounds imposed on those on lowest incomes, especially pensioners, and noting that the Government's deliberate increase in inequality has not promoted economic efficiency but trapped millions of low-income individuals deeper in poverty, calls upon the Government to provide incentives for all to achieve pathways out of poverty and to gain the fair share in rising living standards that is offered elsewhere in Europe.
It would be easy to make the case that the number of people forced to live in poverty on supplementary benefit —now income support—has risen by over 50 per cent. in the last decade to more than 9 million people today, and that there are now some 2·5 million people living below the level of income that Parliament has laid down as the minimum on which anyone should live.
It would be easy to make the case that the worst-off in our society have seen their living standards fall sharply over this decade by comparison with those in work. It would be easy to make the case, too, not only that the rich have been made richer by this Government but that it has been done by making the poor much poorer. The savings that the Government have made at the expense of pensioners by cutting them out of rising living standards —savings to the Government, but cuts, of course, to pensioners—which over the decade now amount to over£20 billion, more than cover the total cost of all the Government's tax cuts since 1979.
It would be easy to make that case, because it is all true and widely known to be true. That is precisely why I shall not rehearse it in detail. Instead, I intend to take the Government's own declared philosophy in its own right, and to assess that against reality, as far as possible through the eyes of those at whom it is directed. On that basis I shall then press three serious charges of which, even in their own terms, the Government are guilty.
The Prime Minister's view on all this is clear and unequivocal. She told the House——this almost takes one's breath away but these are her words:
 "people who are living in need are fully and properly provided for."—[Official Report, 22 December 1983; Vol. 51, c. 5611 Let us test that against the facts. The report of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, published this month, on social fund applicants includes this example:
 "Young man, tetraplegic, rehoused in flat following a year in hospital and two and a half years in residential care.


Refused grant for fridge to reduce need to shop, because there was no indication that 'without a grant you would have to enter residential institutional care'.
I shall give one more example from another NACAB report published three months ago:
 "A CAB in Yorks/Humberside reported a client who first contacted them seven days after his bridging allowance had run out. He had an offer of a job, but it was not due to start for a week and would then be paid a week in arrears. By the time he was paid, he would have been three weeks with no money. DSS refused a crisis loan and told him to go to a soup kitchen. He was unable to take the job due to his deteriorating physical state and revisited the CAB a couple of weeks later. By this time he was starving, physically weak and unable to keep down a hot drink. The client's mother is dead and his father is terminally ill.
So he had no one to turn to but the DSS, and the DSS turned him away.
The Prime Minister's belligerent pretentions brook no doubts. In her letter just before Christmas chastising church leaders for attacking the Government's record on poverty—which I note they did effectively again yesterday —she went even further:
 "Over the last decade living standards have increased at all points of income distribution—and that includes the poorest.
If that is so, one wonders how she knows, since her own Government have suppressed all the relevant evidence. They have abolished the Royal Commission on income and wealth, curtailed the general household survey, abolished the Supplementary Benefits Commission which regularly published relevant information, made more changes in unemployment statistics than there are holes in a colander, removed from "Social Trends" the material on the link between unemployment and ill health, and blocked the publication of the Black report on health and social class.
How then does the Prime Minister know? We could do with a little glasnost, since the political concealment of the truth is highly reminiscent of pre-Gorbachev Soviet censorship. There can be no better indicator of official shamefacedness. Is that the reason why we have had no official statistics on low-income families for the last five years?

Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend has given two examples. May I give another example from my constituency? I have a constituent called Melvin Wall who two years ago had his toes removed. He received mobility allowance. Later, one leg was removed below the knee. Then the other leg was removed below the knee. His mobility allowance was stopped after only two years. The junior Minister has the case in his in-tray, and we may get a response at some stage. What happens is that occasionally there is a trawl to try to remove people from the payments system. Obviously Melvin Wall was caught up in that.

Mr. Meacher: It is a pity that the Prime Minister is not here, because it would be nice to know how she thinks that that person who is in need is fully and effectively provided for. My hon. Friend has illustrated one case from thousands around the country which show the complete indifference and lack of concern about need in Britain today.
What we know shows that the Prime Minister is downright wrong. The latest information from official

sources shows that the number of people below pension age living on or below the supplementary benefit level more than doubled, to 6·5 million, between 1979 and 1985. The Government's explanation is that the rise in the real value of supplementary benefit, which was about I per cent., accounted for half the huge increase. That gives the whole game away. Even if we accept the Government's explanation, which I do not, the fact remains that the other half of the increase, nearly 2 million, is implicitly admitted by the Government to be due to a rise in absolute poverty.
My real charge against the Government is not merely that there has unquestionably been a substantial increase in poverty in the 1980s, but that the Government's policy for redressing poverty is completely discredited. The Government claimed that, if entrepreneurs were motivated with big incentives, the trickle-down effect would ensure that some of the gains went to low-income families. What the Government never admitted was that the big incentives were to be paid for by squeezing the very people on low incomes who were supposed to be the beneficiaries of the policy. Indeed, the Government have done what no other Government, even previous Tory Governments, ever did before: they have pushed whole groups of people below a poverty line which was always accepted by all previous Governments as the minimum for healthy physical survival.
People who get loans from the social fund are forced to repay them out of basic income support. Where, as in most places, the poll tax levy is higher than the Government's supposed national average, individuals on the lowest incomes will have to pay out of income support the amount by which the levy exceeds the 20 per cent. allowance. People living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation now have to pay amenity charges out of income support for facilities such as hot water or breakfast, which they often do not get.
Let me quote just one example of the trend, which is far from untypical. A single girl, aged 17, was placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation by a local authority because she was regarded as a vulnerable single person. Her basic income support was assessed at£18·72 from which£4.87 was deducted for repayment of a social fund loan. She actually received 13·85 in income support. Out of that she was required to pay£6 a week for heating, breakfast and other services, even if those were not available. Her actual living income was therefore£7·85 a week.
My first charge is about the Prime Minister's boast, as she expressed it again in the House in 1988:
Everyone in the nation has benefited from the increased prosperity—everyone."—[Official Report, 17 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 801.]
Not only is that boast completely phoney, as millions could tell her, but she has reduced even the little share that they already had. If the Prime Minister would only get out of her bullet-proof limousine and visit her subjects occasionally, if she would only take a short walk from here to cardboard city on the South Bank, or perhaps go on the Underground for a change, the truth would stare her in the face.

Mr. Eric S. Heller: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister could do nothing better than to read an excellent new report from the Church, "Living Faith in the City", which says:
 "Too much emphasis is being placed on individualism and not enough on collective obligation"?


The Prime Minister could read that report with great interest and benefit from it. It cites some statistics:
 "The official General Household Survey shows that in 1986 1 million households in Britain (5 per cent.) had a gross weekly income of£40 or less and 33/4million households (18 per cent.) had a gross weekly income of£60 or less.
I suggest that the Prime Minister has a go at supporting a family on that sort of income.

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend makes an effective point. A former Conservative MP boasted that he could exist for a week on supplementary benefit, as it then was. He did so brazenly in front of the television cameras, but he could not get through to the end of the week. He was a fit young man, and people in a much frailer state of health have to endure that standard of living for months, if not years, on end.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Does my hon. Friend agree that matters can be even worse than that for an individual living on supplementary benefit? If he takes out a social fund loan, money will be taken away from him in repayments, and the poll tax may be deducted from his benefit as well. Such people will have to subsist on a pittance.

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend eloquently makes a point that I have touched on, and anticipated other questions to which I shall come.
My second charge is that the Prime Minister has consistently talked about the incentive society with open opportunities for all, yet her policies have effectively shut out a quarter of the nation. That matters as remedying poverty is not primarily a matter of improving benefits but of giving people the chance to earn their own living. A major feature of British society today is the fast-growing number of marginalised poor people living alongside others who are increasingly affluent and consumer-orientated and unable to share in any growing prosperity. In their experience, this is not "opportunities Britain" but "obstacle course Britain".
Lone parents, of whom there are now more than 1 million in Britain, three quarters of them previously married, illustrate that point poignantly. I shall cite one example:
 "for the past two years Mrs. Barnes has been out of work, living off the£33.28 weekly that is left in benefit after her mortgage has been paid … determined to do the best for herself
and her son, aged eight,
she has taken a job as a home help for Kent County Council, helping old people and the disabled with shopping, cleaning and cooking … As yet, she is not sure whether she will be left with more or less money out of her earnings of£2·3 per hour, once the mortgage of£171 per month is paid because Family Credit, the benefit that is supposed to make it worthwhile for the low-paid to remain in work
does not, of course, take account of mortgage payments.
 "Either way, it will be a matter of a few pounds which effectively means she is working for almost nothing … Money is not the fundamental problem which forces Mrs. Barnes into the underclass. It is the lack of child care after school and during school holidays which prevents her from earning
her living and becoming independent.
Mrs. Barnes's case illustrates the mortgage trap, but there are two further ways in which Government policy has made it more difficult for lone parents to get work. First, there is the child care trap. While the earnings disregard was raised in 1988 from£12 to£15 a week, no account is taken of work expenses, and that effectively

traps those unable to get free child care. In addition, there is the benefits trap. Low-income families lost their entitlement to free school meals in the Fowler review, and that means that it is more difficult for lone parents, especially those with more than one school-age child, to go out to work. With sharper clawbacks, too, for the rate of loss of housing benefit, it is not surprising that fewer lone parents have a part-time job now than before the Government's social security review.
Then there is the debt trap, in which persistent very low incomes force people into the arms of the social fund—with all the consequences to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) referred—or even into the hands of loan sharks. That drives people deeper into poverty and makes the recovery of economic self-reliance much more difficult.
Many other people are discriminated against by the Government's rules. Two months ago, the Secretary of State introduced a£43-a-week means test on unemployment benefit. A part-time worker who works one day or more a week will now lose a whole week's benefit. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that that is a serious disincentive to people taking up part-time work.
Perhaps the worst way in which the Government are blocking the way out of dependency is the double bind in which they have placed 16 to 19-year-olds over work and accommodation. In a report issued two months ago, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation cited one example from its case notes:
a 17-year-old girl, in care since she was four … was supposed to be repaying a social fund loan as well as a fine, but had received no benefit since she left YTS.
She was
'homeless and without any income, in danger of prostitution and drug abuse, very vulnerable.' The likely outcome was `starvation and reoffending'. She had damaged a telephone to get into police cell for food and shelter.
What is needed, and what the Labour party proposes, is a recasting of public services so that they become fully accessible as pathways out of poverty. High-quality training needs to be more widely available, particularly for women re-entering the labour market after caring for dependants, for 16 to 19-year-olds and for the long-term unemployed, if they are to gain entrance to the enterprise culture. Disabled people need improved local services, such as appropriate transport and community care, adaptation for access to buildings and skills and benefits that make part-time work worth while for the partially incapacitated.
We would also abolish the unfair and discriminatory tax that is currently levied on the imputed value of workplace nurseries, which, despite being such a limitation, raise only about£1 million a year in revenue. We deplore and would reverse the worsening of the social wage in recent years, our poor public transport, the lack of home helps and other community services and damp and unfit housing—all of which not only lower the quality of life but stifle initiatives to gain and hold employment. Only then will we begin to transform excluded Britain into an enabling society.
My third charge against the Prime Minister is that she is letting this country fall further and further behind Europe, in basic social rights as in so many other ways. I am well aware that there is rather a sterile debate about whether poverty is absolute or relative, but there can be no argument about the need for us to achieve, if not exceed,


common standards in Europe, and it is undeniable that in the 1980s our record became much worse in comparison with that of the rest of Europe.
Take pensions. The latest figures from Eurolink Age suggest that, relative to earnings—and that is the right comparison—the basic state pension is only half that of other major EEC countries. On average, a single person in Britain now receives a pension that represents only 46 per cent. of his previous net earnings. A person in an equivalent position in Italy gets a pension that is 81 per cent. of his previous net earnings. In Germany the figure is 82 per cent., in France it is 92 per cent., and in the Netherlands it is 93 per cent.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: Of course it is true—

Mr. Devlin: rose—

Mr. Meacher: I may be anticipating what the hon. Gentleman is about to say, but perhaps he will just let me make this point.
Of course, it is true that many pensioners in Britain have an occupational pension also, but it is equally true that for many people that pension is very small. The basic pension represents the safety net provision for older people throughout Europe, and Britain's low level of provision really does matter because we have the third largest number of elderly people in the EEC and one of the largest populations of old elderly, many of whom have no extra pension.

Mr. Devlin: I was interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about comparisons with pensions in Europe, because my constituents raise that point with me all the time. However, I wonder how the hon. Gentleman responds to this point. Britain is the only country in the European Community that offers all its pensioners a guaranteed state minimum pension. It is also the only country that gives all women a pension, regardless of whether they have worked. It is all very well to say that pensioners in France receive 80 per cent. of their previous net earnings, but that means that some people have extremely low incomes because, not having earned a great deal during their lives, they do not get a great deal of pension.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, which is a surprising one to come from a Conservative Member. The guaranteed state minimum pension was, of course, put in place by the Labour Government in the 1970s. I remind him that not only SERPS, which is excellent and which I am convinced is the best pension scheme available as a top-up to the basic pension, but our guaranteed minimum pension for occupational pensions is underwritten by the state. It was a Labour Government who did that, and since 1979 the Conservative Government have been doing their best to unravel it. It was a Labour Government who ensured that women would be able to receive a full-rate SERPS pension on the basis of 20 years' work, so that women who had brought up a family and could work for only 20 years would not be disadvantaged in any way.
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that those are very real advantages, but I should like him to address his remarks to his right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench, who have been doing their best to undermine that part of their inheritance from the previous Labour Government.

The Secretary of State for Social Security: rose—

Mr. Meacher: I thought that that might bring the right hon. Gentleman to his feet.

Mr. Newton: Only briefly, to observe as mildly as I can that I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has addressed the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) put to him, which was that, against the comparisons that the hon. Gentleman has sought to make with Europe, people in Europe who are low paid almost certainly do less well than their counterparts here, and married women in Europe, not being entitled to a pension on their husband's contributions as they are here, may well end up without any pension. The hon. Gentleman should take those points into account in his comparisons.

Mr. Meacher: I am the first to admit that it is difficult to make comparisons with Europe, not only on pensions, but on other aspects of social welfare, and any comparison must be significantly qualified. However, as the right hon. Gentleman regularly talks about "the average" in our debates—indeed, that is probably the fairest way of making comparisons—I remind him that I had been considering the pension that is available to a person on average earnings, and that that consideration leads to the picture that I presented.

Mr. Devlin: rose—

Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way again. The hon. Gentleman will be able to make his own speech and I have been speaking for some time now—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman.: Giving Meacherisms.

Mr. Meacher: Well, I shall try to draw to a close now.
I now turn to child care provision. Family benefits for a couple with three children under 12 now amount to£21·75 per week in Britain. In France they are double that, at£43·30 per week. British families are the worst off among the major EEC industrial nations, with only Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Greece paying less in family benefits.
I now take low wages as an example, because low pay is such a potent cause of poverty. The minimum rate set by the wages councils in Britain, which cover one tenth of the work force, is£338 per month. In Germany it is nearly double that, at£653 per month. Again, Britain is behind all the main EEC industrial nations and ranks firmly in the second league, along with Greece, Spain and Portugal.
All those facts speak for themselves. It is clear in my mind that the Prime Minister's rooted objection to the European social charter stems much less from any belief that it will undermine economic efficiency than from her recognition that, if implemented, it would expose her deplorable and shameful social record.
The social charter is not about a drain on market forces. It is about providing a launching pad so that people can participate in and contribute to the society around them.


It is the Prime Minister's wilful obstinacy which makes her demand compliance with the enterprise culture, and which refuses to acknowledge that her own policies block people, however willing, from participating fully in society.
I conclude with the story of Adrian Loveless, which has already been raised with the Secretary of State in correspondence by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo). Adrian Loveless is an unemployed photographer whose wife Hilary had a bit of a windfall when her ex-business partner sent her $2,000 out of the blue. A condition of the enterprise allowance scheme is that the person concerned must put up £1,000 in capital himself or herself. They therefore decided to put that money into the enterprise allowance scheme.
To make ends meet, Adrian was told that he would receive £40 in enterprise allowance, and that he could claim family credit. He was also told that he would lose his children's entitlement to free school meals. However, he was not told that his housing benefit would also be lost or reduced because he would be claiming family credit. He applied for family credit on 7 August last year, but it was refused. Mr. Loveless appealed and a claimant adviser told him to withdrawn the appeal and to claim again. The new application was also turned down. Adrian asked for help from the social fund, but was refused because he had capital. His housing benefit was cut off because the local authority assumed that he was receiving £60 in family credit. At this stage, the free school meals were withdrawn.
Adrian Loveless commented later:
Since the summer I have lived in a Catch 22 situation … My family credit was withdrawn.
I couldn't get income support because I was working for more than 24 hours. Things were impossibly tight, but I couldn't get a crisis loan because we were not destitute.
We have had to spend the 2,000 dollars to keep alive, so now I haven't got the money for the EAS.
On Tuesday 17 October, all our money had gone. All we had was the child allowance. It amounted to £29 for six of us.
So much for the Prime Minister's enterprise culture. It is because there are millions of people across the country like Adrian Loveless, who are frustrated, embittered and deprived, that we shall press our motion tonight.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
notes with approval the Government's plans to increase substantially spending on social security in the coming financial year bringing the total to an unprecedented £55·6 billion reflecting further growth on top of the 36 per cent. real terms increase which has taken place since 1978–79; and commends it for introducing a reformed structure of benefits enabling these massive resources to be targeted more effectively on those in need thereby ensuring that, from April this year some 1·5 million families with three million children will again have their income-related benefits increased in real terms bringing the amount of extra help provided for them to over £350 million in real terms since April 1988, for improving incentives by virtually eliminating marginal deduction rates in excess of 100 per cent., thus ensuring that working families keep more of the money they earn, and for providing an improved, more accurate and speedier service to the public.
I do not propose to comment on some of the anecdotal cases that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) raised. Obviously we have had difficulty with some of the cases that have been raised by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, and where it is possible to identify the cases or where we have been given identifying details, I shall, of course, look at them. I shall

specifically look at the last case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned about which he said that one of his hon. Friends has written to me. I shall make sure that that case is fully and faithfully looked into with a view to seeing whether improvements could and should be made in the working of the benefit system. I can give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking, but beyond that I am sure that he will understand that it would be wrong for me to seek to make off-the-cuff comments about individual cases.
I had some difficulty in relating what the hon. Gentleman said about millions of people being in the position that he described to what most people would perceive as being the broad reality. I remind him that the real take-home pay of married men in this country has risen by about a third in nearly 10 years and that in the past year alone the real take-home pay of a man on average male earnings has increased by about £20 per week, including the effect of cuts in national insurance contributions. In addition, we have had the longest period of falling unemployment since the war. Employment is at the highest ever level and the work force in employment has risen for some six years and has increased by more than 2·25 million. I do not make those points simply to dismiss what the hon. Member for Oldham, West said.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, we have been asked to make brief speeches, in view of the curtailment of the debate. While I do not rule out giving way, I should like to complete my point.
I do not seek to dismiss out of hand every point that the hon. Member for Oldham, West made. He put his case in what I regard as a characteristically overheated and exaggerated way which did not give a true picture of the social and economic realities of Britain. One of the important and encouraging developments of the past 10 years, which have been marked by a rapid rise in prosperity brought about by economic growth and productivity, is that prosperity is increasingly more widespread. There is a better regional spread of prosperity. There has also been an encouraging resurgence of many inner-city areas. That was acknowledged by the church men who produced their report yesterday. All those improvements rest on a significantly better economic performance in the past decade than in the two previous decades.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Newton: I have already said that I shall be hesitant about giving way. The House knows that I usually give way readily. In these circumstances, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and then to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend add to his catalogue of ways in which we have done exceptionally well the fact that separate taxation for women, from April, will be of enormous benefit to pensioners? Women will be able to receive tax relief on their pension, which they cannot do at present.

Mr. Newton: That is one of the many instances where changes in taxation, which the hon. Member for Oldham,


West vilifies—to use a strong word—are by no means confined to helping those whom he chooses to describe as rich.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State take his mind back to his remarks about unemployment levels? He claims that the Government have presided over the longest continuous period of falling unemployment. I remind him that 1·2 million people were unemployed in 1979, that the Government managed to increase the number of registered unemployed to 3·3 million and that, on their own adulterated figures, there are still almost 2 million unemployed. That is still far higher than when the Government came into office in 1979, and it is one of the highest figures for industrial countries in Western Europe. Is he proud of that?

Mr. Newton: I am proud that the Government have tackled some of Britain's long-running, underlying economic problems, in particular our relatively low rates of growth of productivity and of the economy as a whole, in comparison with other countries. We have tackled those problems far more effectively than many of our predecessors. As a consequence, we probably have the best record in Europe for creating new jobs and for the number of jobs that we provide for our work force. Our improved economic performance and the wealth that it has created for the whole country has enabled us to put steadily increasing amounts into many important forms of social provision, not least social security.
One fact that should be firmly registered in this debate is that expenditure on social security will exceed £55 billion next year. That is £1 billion a week, or more than £20 every week for every man, woman and child. It is almost £40 billion more than in 1979 and, as the public expenditure White Paper published today states, will be further increased to over £63 billion in 1992–93.
The plans that we published in more detail today imply a growth rate in spending on social security of an average of 4 per cent. a year for the next three years over and above the assumed increase in prices. That is on top of a 36 per cent.—more than a third—increase in real terms since 1978–79. That record and those plans are not those of a Government who, as the hon. Gentleman seeks to suggest, seek to undermine the welfare state. It is the record of a Government who recognise that a growing economy is the prerequisite for improved social provision.

Mr John Battle: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman takes a careful interest in these debates, I shall give way.

Mr. Battle: The Secretary of State referred earlier to average wages. Does he accept that one of the primary causes of poverty in our society is low pay, often for temporary or part-time work? Many people in inner-city areas and in my constituency earn less than half of the average take-home pay of £258 a week. Why do the Government consistently refuse to accept the Council of Europe decency threshold as a means of taking people on low pay out of poverty? That would provide an accurate assessment of poverty in our society.

Mr. Newton: I make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, any assessment would require a national minimum wage. Some people, including perhaps the hon. Gentleman, support that, but most people accept that one of the first results would be fewer jobs. That would not benefit the people that he seeks to help.
Secondly, the problem of people who find that they would be only a little better off by working usually arises primarily, not solely, out of family responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman and, to be fair, the hon. Member for Oldham, West are rightly worried about that problem. Family responsibilities are taken into account in the social security system, particularly through family credit, but they are not taken into account in the wage system. In any society it would be difficult to achieve—this is more than a debating point—a wage system that avoided the need for the type of help that we seek to give to low-income families through family credit—

Ms. Clare Short: What about a national minimum wage?

Mr Newton: A national minimum wage would not overcome that problem. It is difficult to see how it could do so. If a national minimum wage were set, for example, at the level required to overcome the need for family credit—

Mr. Meacher: No one suggests that we eliminate family credit by that means.

Mr. Newton: Exactly. The hon. Gentleman knows that any attempt to do so would cause a dramatic rise in unemployment because it would price many people out of work.

Ms. Short: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Newton: I will give way because the hon. Lady is a Front-Bench spokesman. However, I hope that you will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I seek henceforth to respond to Mr. Speaker's plea for brief speeches.

Ms. Short: How does every other country in the European Community manage to have a national minimum wage while the British economy cannot?

Mr. Newton: It may have something to do with the fact that we have had such a successful record in generating new employment. The hon. Lady will find that we have a good record in generating new jobs and, for example, on the level of employment among married women. Another reason may be that we have not set a national minimum wage.
I hope that I have made it clear that I do not suggest that some people do not have needs for which we wish to do more. I simply wish to bring some balance to the framework of the debate after the hon. Gentleman's speech. If I were in a more aggressive frame of mind—I rarely am—I might say that I saw little reason to accept lectures from a former social security Minister in a Government who twice failed to pay the Christmas bonus to the pensioners. [Interruption.] I appreciate that the Opposition Front-Bench team do not like being reminded of these facts, but I am entitled to point them out, as I have done on a number of occasions, and to remind the hon. Member for Oldham, West—he is always good natured when I do so—that it is not so many years since he, as a


social security Minister, was shouted down by a trade-union organised pensioners' rally when he tried to defend the Government's record.

Mr. Meacher: rose—

Mr. Newton: I can hardly resist the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Meacher: It is pathetic that the only riposte the right hon. Gentleman can make is to draw attention to the one occasion when the Christmas bonus was not paid—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It happened twice.

Mr. Meacher: The important consideration—and the right hon. Gentleman, given his profound knowledge of the social security system, knows this perfectly well—is the percentage real increase in pensioners' income during the lifetime of the Labour Government. The basic pension increased by 20 per cent., even after taking account of the failure to pay the two Christmas bonuses. Under the Conservative Government, the safety net provision has increased by 1 or 2 per cent. only. The basic pension provision was 10 times better under Labour.

Mr. Newton: I am not prepared to accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures, especially as he seems unable to remember that the Government of which he was a member failed twice, not once, to pay the Christmas bonus. He also conveniently forgets the manipulation of the uprating technique in the mid-1970s. That technique took about £1 billion in today's money from pensioners.
I am led to remind the hon. Gentleman of what must be uncomfortable and displeasing facts because of what underlay the events of that time. I know the hon. Gentleman well enough to know that he would have been unwilling to go into Government with the aim of not paying the Christmas bonus or of undertaking the various other measures adopted by the then Labour Government. We know why it happened. The Labour Government's spending ambitions and promises so far outran the capacity of the economy to produce the necessary resources that the International Monetary Fund stepped in. In effect, it told the Labour Government not to pay the Christmas bonus and to get on with cutting expenditure in various ways. Against the background of that record, it is legitimate for me to say that I am at least sceptical about the receipt of the type of lecture the hon. Gentleman sought to give us this afternoon.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West is aware—he has not sought to dispute the fact seriously—that we have faithfully adhered to our obligation and commitment to maintain the value of the retirement pension in line with the increase in prices. As I have already emphasised endlessly, we have sought successfully to pursue policies to create a stable and increasingly prosperous economic environment in which the value of pensioners' income from other sources can grow. Although the hon. Gentleman may believe that I am repeating a point he has heard before, in the context of what he said about state pensions I must remind him forcefully that of particular importance is what has happened to pensioners' incomes as a whole, from all sources. One should not focus on one particular source. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the facts as they have been adverted to in the House on a number of occasions.

Mr. Paul Flynn: We hear about them every week.

Mr. Newton: I make no apology for referring to them every week as the facts are good and they are too little noticed either by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen or by people elsewhere.
Between 1979 and 1986, the average total net income of pensioners increased by 22 per cent. in real terms. The proportion of pensioners in the lowest fifth of national income distribution fell from 38 per cent. to 24 per cent. To hear the hon. Gentleman talk, one would think it had risen. The proportion of pensioners whose only income is from state benefits fell from 24 per cent. to under 20 per cent., but those pensioners whose only income is still from state benefits have enjoyed a 25 per cent. increase in their income.
The hon. Members for Oldham, West and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) know that the critical ingredients in that improvement are—

Ms. Short: SERPS.

Mr. Newton: No. It is the growth in occupational pensions and, above all, the fall in the rate of inflation. That has meant that pensioners' incomes from their savings and the returns from them have doubled.
Between 1979 and 1986, pensioners saw a 64 per cent. real increase in their incomes from savings. That compared with the position under the Labour Government when their income from savings fell by 16 per cent.
We have always recognised that those trends that are helpful to and welcomed by pensioners as a whole do not mean that all pensioners have enjoyed the same increase. I do not seek to minimise that fact in any way. Not all pensioners have occupational pensions or savings; increasingly, younger pensioners have such savings. We have, however, concentrated additional resources on raising the income support premiums, as we did in October. We have also increased the help given through housing benefit to the older or more disabled pensioner who is less likely to have the advantage of an occupational pension or a savings income, which help so many others. In all, those measures and other improvements have led to a real increase of 22 per cent. in spending on benefits for the elderly since 1979. I do not believe that anyone can suggest other than that that represents a strong commitment to help those who need help.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West also spoke about the disabled. Since they were debated at some length in the House less than a week ago, I shall make only a brief reference to them. I must remind the House that social security expenditure on the long-term sick and disabled has virtually doubled since 1979, to a total of more than £8 billion a year. That represents a huge increase in the coverage of all the main disability benefits. In 1979, fewer than 100,000 people were in receipt of mobility allowance, but now more than 600,000 people are in receipt of it.

Ms. Short: That is all to do with take-up. It has nothing to do with the Government.

Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I must remind the hon. Lady of something else of which she is obviously unaware. In 1979, we inherited from the Labour Government a snail's-pace implementation of the mobility allowance. We specifically speeded up the implementation of that allowance and we have contributed to the growth in the number of those in receipt of it.

Ms. Short: Surely the increased spending on people with disabilities is due to an enormous increase in the take-up of rights created by the Labour Government and not because of new rights created by the Conservative Government.

Mr. Newton: No, that is not true. The hon. Lady should listen for 10 seconds instead of popping up and down constantly as I might enlighten her.
I accept that mobility allowance was introduced by the Labour Government, but it was implemented at a slow pace and, from 1979, we accelerated its implementation. The numbers in receipt of attendance allowance have risen from about 250,000 to 800,000 people. In the past 10 years take-up of that allowance has trebled. That benefit was not introduced by the Labour Government; it was introduced by a former right hon. Friend of mine, Lord Joseph, in the 1970s.
Similarly, when the hon. Lady makes that point, she should remember that invalid care allowance—which has risen in coverage from only 5,000 in 1979 to 110,000 now—was confined by the Labour Government so that married women could not have it. Its extension to married women—which has mostly caused the huge increase in coverage—was carried through and paid for by this Government. That was against a restriction specifically imposed by the previous Government.
I am sure that the House is well aware that we have recently come forward with another wide range of plans of various kinds to improve still further benefits for disabled people, give additional help especially to those who are disabled at birth or early in life, improve the coverage of help with the costs of disability and do more to help those disabled people who can and wish to work.
I shall touch on some of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, including low-income families with children. As the House knows, last April we used the flexibility of the new social security system to give more help to low-income families, over and above what was needed to keep pace with inflation. In October, I announced that from April 1990 we shall do so again to help the families who most need it. We shall give increases in the family premium, income support and other benefits, and a particular increase for those working families on family credit. As a result of those policies, 1·5 million families, with 3 million children—roughly a quarter of the nation's children—will have their income-related benefits increased in real terms, bringing the amount of extra help provided for them to more than £350 million in real terms since April 1988.
Our efforts have been directed not only at improving the help that we give to those who clearly need it, but helping those who wish to reduce or end their dependence on the benefits system. The hon. Member for Oldham, West focused on this. We are tackling some of the traps and disincentives which undoubtedly exist. That has been done in a variety of ways within the basic structure—most notably in recent months by abolishing the pensioners earnings rule. The proposals which I included in my uprating statement also increase the amount of earnings that people can have without losing their invalid care allowance, increase the amount of earnings which people can have in certain circumstances—the so-called therapeutic earnings limit for those disabled people getting

invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance. They also contain measures to encourage and help disabled people seeking to take employment rehabilitation courses.
The hon. Gentleman touched on the fact that I have proposed a substantial improvement in the earnings disregard for lone parents in respect of housing benefit. That will particularly help lone parents who are working but do not receive income support.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Newton: Yes, but this will have to be the last time.

Mr. Latham: When my right hon. talks about thresholds, will he bear in mind the capital threshold disregard? That is particularly important for pensioners with small occupational pensions who will not receive community charge rebates because of the capital figure.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that the capital limits in respect of what will now be community charge rebate, but until now has been rate rebate, were improved shortly after April 1988. That was a welcome move. He may not know that we recently introduced a small improvement in the capital rules connected with people receiving help from the social fund. Both moves show our awareness of the point made by my hon. Friend.
In the wake of all the interventions in my speech, and in the interest of keeping my speech to a manageable length, I shall briefly make two further points. I have talked about the improvements in the earnings disregard and other rules which seek to help people who wish to work within the present system. A major strategic structural improvement has been made with considerable success which is directed at that very problem—the introduction of family credit. That takes about twice as much money to 50 per cent. more families than were being helped by its predecessor.
We also plan to build on our strategic aim of doing more to help those who would like to work with our recent proposal for a disability employment credit. We shall work that out in detail with a view to introducing it in April 1992. That is aimed at a matter that has long been the subject of discussion in British politics—the need for a partial incapacity benefit to reduce the number of disabled people who feel themselves, rightly or wrongly, trapped on benefit by the present system, but who can and would like to work, at least to some extent.
There is an issue which has had considerable discussion both inside and outside the House in recent months which is connected with lone parents. While the sort of improvements which I have mentioned in relation to both family credit and earnings disregard can undoubtedly make a useful contribution to easing some of the difficulties, it is common ground—although the hon. Gentleman did not say a great deal about this—that we all wish significantly more to be done to collect maintenance from absent parents when it should be paid.
At present, for only a quarter of lone parent families on income support does the absent parent pay any maintenance. That is fairly widely regarded as unfair to the taxpayer. Just as important, it is clearly unfair to the children in the family and, not least, to the lone parent because maintenance income provides a good foundation on which to build for a lone parent seeking to move from claiming benefit to work. As the House knows, we are


working towards bringing forward later this year proposals related to this matter, taking into account recent overseas experience, for example, in Australia, the United States and New Zealand, where there have been significant improvements in the way in which maintenance is both assessed and collected.
The House will not expect me to predict now what those proposals will be but will wish me to confirm that to help us in carrying that work forward my Department, together with the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office, the Scottish Office and the Lord Advocate's Department, has commissioned a survey from a sizeable sample of courts and local DSS offices. That will give us better information on the sums of maintenance which are awarded and collected by the courts and local offices and about the amounts of maintenance paid to those on benefit. It will also give us more information about the means of absent parents and, thus, assist us in determining what maintenance payments we can reasonably expect from a different system.

Mr. Barry Porter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the Prime Minister's statement and what he has said today, during the past 10 years the number of people involved in collecting money from absent parents has declined dramatically? Unless those people are replaced, the chances of getting money from absent parents will be nil.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend leads me to my concluding point. He may have slightly misunderstood what I sought to say. At present, there is a set of rules within the DSS for seeking to get maintenance for those on income support—which I am about to mention. They have not been as effectively used as they should have been during the past 10 years. I agree with my hon. Friend about that.
The issue which I raised a moment or two ago, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised a week or two ago and which led me to refer to experience in other countries including Australia, New Zealand and the United States, runs wider and is not simply concerned with DSS matters. That was why our work involves the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office and others.
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that there is clearly scope in the existing systems operated by the Department of Social Security for improving the way in which maintenance is collected. Steps have already been taken by my predecessor, as he made clear to the House a year or more ago, to improve things. Whereas in 1988–89 we recovered about £155 million from liable relatives, we are aiming in 1989–90 to increase that to £180 million, and it looks as though that aim will be achieved.
Next year we are changing our procedures in ways which we expect to take that figure to more than £200 million, including strengthening the basis on which an absent parent's ability to pay maintenance is assessed by our local officers. The present assessment rests on leaving a margin of 25 per cent. of net earnings over and above the appropriate income support level plus full housing costs. We propose to reduce that figure to 15 per cent., although, as always in our present system, any failure to reach a reasonable agreement would mean that a final decision would depend not on the DSS but on the courts.
The action that we are taking in that area, together with the help that I described earlier for pensioners, disabled

people and low income families with children, and our record of increased expenditure on social security which underlies what we have been able to do, show the Opposition's motion to be the nonsense that it is and which the House will judge it to be when it votes.

6 pm

Sir David Steel: No objective person would seek to deny the Secretary of State's description of the growing prosperity and rising living standards in Britain over the past decade, but amidst those rising standards there is, unhappily, also a rising and perhaps largely ignored level of poverty, to which public opinion and the Government should be awakened. We must at least assume that in a democracy public opinion will have some influence on Government, even though their conduct of the ambulance drivers' dispute does not give us much hope.
Because this is an important issue, I am glad to have associated myself with a campaign which was launched just before Christmas by an interdenominational group of churches called Church Action on Poverty. In its publication it quotes the figures issued by the Government in 1985 which clearly show that some 9 million of our fellow citizens are living at or below the official supplementary benefit levels—a 50 per cent. increase since 1979.
To a large extent, the explanation for that is the dramatic rise in unemployment that we saw in the middle of the decade, and that is also part of the explanation for the greatly increased Government expenditure on social security, a figure that the Secretary of State gave us. But those are explanations rather than excuses, and it should be a matter of concern to what is basically a prosperous country that we have that substantial level of poverty in our midst.
Some of it is the result of direct policy changes by the Government. For example, the result of changes in the tax and benefit systems combined is that the bottom 60 per cent. of earners have had their incomes cut by £6·6 billion since 1979, while the top 10 per cent. have had an overall increase of £5·6 billion. There has been a deliberate shift in the redistribution of weekly and monthly wealth in Britain.
Similarly, the impact of the poll tax has yet to be understood by those who represent constituencies where the poll tax has not yet come into operation. Most hon. Members I see present have not yet had experience of this, but I speak as a Scottish Member. Research undertaken by the local government information unit demonstrates that the poll tax will add to the trend that I have already described, resulting from the changes in tax and benefit policies. Of the poorest tenth, some 83 per cent. will lose out by the introduction of the poll tax compared with the old rating system, while 71 per cent. of the richest tenth will gain. That is an additional factor that is yet to have an impact on most of the United Kingdom's economy in the current year.
There is a new level of poverty on which no one has touched and on which I do not propose to dwell—I am not sure that poverty is precisely the right word—created as a result of the Government's policy, which my party fully supported, to sell council houses. The impact of huge interest rates and mortgage increases means that many people are now struggling to pay their mortgages. The latest figure that I have shows that, in the middle of last


year, some 45,000 home buyers in Britain were more than six months in arrears with their mortgage payments. That has caused great stress to many of our fellow citizens.
The existence of poverty on that substantial scale in Britain cannot be explained away by a mixture of bad luck and personal weakness. It is caused by the economic and political processes which direct our society. It is caused largely by Government policy and we must be concerned that a country that is capable of generating so much wealth is also capable of generating so much division between rich and poor in our society.
About 18 months ago in Canada, I listened with interest and amusement to a lecture by the American Liberal economist, J. K. Galbraith. His description of the experience in the United States applies to Britain. He said:
We have had, in these last years, large reductions in the effective rates of the income tax on the very rich. And also a powerful crusade against the welfare services to the poor. The rich, it is held, need incentive to greater economic effort; the poor need release from the debilitating effect of welfare … The rich have not been working because they have too little money; the poor have not been working because they have too much.
A great deal of that philosophy has been around in economic and political circles over the past decade. But the underclass that has been created and isolated from the rest of society by its poverty is, in the main, composed of people who do not work. A few, admittedly, may be workshy, but most cannot work because they live in the wrong areas, have no usable skills, are too old or have children or relatives for whom they have to care.
In some of the big cities that I have visited during the past decade, which other hon. Members represent—parts of Liverpool and Birmingham—most notably the cities that have suffered major industrial decline, there are communities of mass poverty of those who do not work. There is one difference between them and the poverty that afflicted the Victorian generation: they have before them night after night the vision of the other society on their television screens. That is one reason why there is a direct correlation between the areas of deprivation and the rising crime rate, particularly the rising rate of crime against property. The contrast is obvious between their life experience and the picture that they see presented to them not only in television programmes but in the acquisitive, attractive nature of television commercials.
Poverty is not limited to the much publicised inner cities. I congratulate the Opposition on choosing this subject for debate. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) gave one or two examples from newspaper cuttings, still valid for all that, but which enabled the Secretary of State to say that the Ministry should be sent names, details and facts. I want to give the House five snapshots of actual cases that I have dealt with in my constituency over the past two years. The first is related to the poll tax.
A young man aged under 25, whose needs under the Government's new policy are assessed as less than those of other human beings, came to see me. He was doing something of which the Government approve—he was on a Government training scheme. His income was £44 a week and he had received a poll tax demand for £17 a month. The first thing that I did was to check with the local authority that his rebate had been properly calculated, and it had. I wrote to the Secretary of State—this is my

response to his concluding remark—asking how he expected a man on £44 a week to pay £17 a month poll tax. His reply was that the rebate was a matter for the local authority to determine. That is the truth, but it is not the whole truth. The local authority can only determine the rebate on the scales laid down by the Secretary of State's Department. I repeat the question: how can one expect a person on an income of £44 per week to pay poll tax of £17 a month?
My second snapshot is of an elderly widow in Lauderdale on an income of £44 per week combined pension and income supplement. Because of changes to the rate rebate system the year before the introduction of poll tax, she received a rates demand for £75 on the house that she rents from her late husband's employer. She asked me how she was expected to pay that bill on her income. Again I checked that the amount being demanded of her was correct, and it was.
The lady also showed me her bank book, with details of her life savings, saying, "You must understand that if I pay that £75 now out of those savings, and something the same next year, and then poll tax the year after that, soon I shall have nothing left to see me decently into my box". That is the reality of life for many people—not just in the inner-city areas but in small towns and villages throughout the country.
My third snapshot concerns a single man living in Galashiels, who had been unemployed for two years. His income of £33·40 was subject to a deduction of £5 as repayment for a social fund loan. He asked me how he was expected, from an income of £28 a week, to feed and clothe himself, and to keep warm. I replied that I could not answer his question.
My fourth snapshot is of a couple from Innerleithen, with a weekly pension of £80, who, despite both being ill and requiring medicine, were refused free prescriptions. Again, I checked that that refusal was correct. The husband wrote to me that he was informing his doctor that, when the present round of prescriptions came to an end, he was taking no more medicine because he could not afford it, and that he and his wife had the greater priority of keeping themselves warm.
The Government's attitude to prescription, dental and eye test charges is fundamentally wrong. In response to a survey published a week or two ago showing that the number of people submitting themselves for eye tests has fallen by 36 per cent. in the nine months since charges were first introduced, the Secretary of State for Health was reported in The Daily Telegraph as saying:
Clearly, the market has not had time to settle, but I am sure that most people are not going to be deterred from visiting their optician because of the requirement to pay a relatively modest charge.
That attitude is all right for a Cabinet Minister on a salary of £50,000 per year or more, because of course a charge of £10 or £12 is relatively modest to him. But it is not a modest charge to the kind of people I have been describing and who visit my constituency clinic; nor is it a modest charge if one is an ambulance driver. When the Government bandy about phrases such as "a relatively modest charge", they are being very insensitive.
My last snapshot is of a widow in Selkirk who wrote that, because of the prospective pension increase in April, she would lose £1 of income support, which I also checked. She wrote to me that she was worried sick. I shall read a brief extract from her letter:


I wrote to Mrs. Thatcher about two years ago about the cost of the television licence for the elderly, as there are a lot who find it very difficult. I myself have gone back to black and white. Her answer was that we could afford it quite well. I would like her to live for one year completely and utterly on the pension and have rent, poll tax, heating, etc. to pay from it. She would give up long before the year was out.
That backs up what the hon. Member for Oldham, West said about a former Member of Parliament who attempted the same thing.
I conclude with two suggestions. The first is a technical one. The Government ought to look at the proposal from the working party under the chairmanship of my noble Friend Baroness Seear for the integration of the tax and benefits system and for the introduction of a low-income benefit that would guarantee a minimum income regardless of the individual's circumstances, including whether or not he was in work. That solution should be carefully and immediately examined.
My second suggestion is for a change of attitude by the Government. I have not forgotten the Prime Minister's remark:
No one would have remembered the good samaritan if he had only good intentions—he had money as well.
She ignores the fact that the good samaritan had concern for the misfortune of someone from a completely different background. This country has the money, but we lack the will to change. Young people of 24 are able to leave university and immediately obtain jobs in the City at a salary of £25,000 a year. Good luck to them—but do we not have a common conscience about the less well-off? The present system has created a submerged population—an underclass living in poverty and despair. It is the responsibility of the whole of the community, and especially of this Parliament and of the present Government.

Sir George Young: The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir. D. Steel) will forgive me if I do not pursue the moving stories that he told the House. I shall not do so, because the debate began at three minutes to 5 o'clock and must end at 7 o'clock. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sat down at 6 o'clock, with more than half the time available for the debate having been occupied by the speeches of the two Front Bench spokesmen. Allowing one quarter of an hour for wind-up speeches, seven Back Benchers are left competing for the remaining 40 minutes.
The specific point I want to make concerns the capital cut-off for benefit eligibility, which is currently £8,000. The most difficult question for any Conservative Member to answer is why people who were prudent during their working lives and who put aside money for their retirement are effectively penalised by the social security system—whereas others who were not so prudent and enjoyed a higher standard of living during their working lives are entitled to income support, housing benefit, and other rebates.
We try to answer that question the best way that we can, but the truth is that there is some disincentive to save and some incentive to reduce capital. That aspect was mentioned also by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) in an intervention. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider the capital cut-off limit, because if it is raised it will blunt the cutting

edge of the criticisms of the system that are made repeatedly and are deeply felt by those who were prudent enough to put money aside.
My first general point is that the nature of poverty has changed, so the way that we tackle it must change as well. In the old days, the poor were born poor, grew up poor, and died poor—and their children were poor as well.

Ms. Short: Which days were those?

Sir George Young: I hope that the hon. Lady will remain silent.
The general approach in those days was to raise incomes. Today, poverty is more closely related to changes in life style, retirement, widowhood, disablement, lone parenthood, AIDS, and young people leaving home. The Finer report on single-parent families and the poverty that confronts them makes it clear that poverty is simply a phase. If it is the case that poverty is linked to changes in one's life style or life cycle, it follows that one must focus measures to tackle it on the general circumstances that I have described. The benefits system must examine those life cycle changes of retirement and bereavement, and of the husband leaving the family, and try to focus help on those specific changes, rather than raise universal benefits all round—although that was the right approach to poverty when the situation was very different from that of today.
The Government are adopting that approach by focusing extra help on the very elderly and on very poor pensioners, and by taking a more rational approach to the disabled and to lone parents. That approach, which I warmly welcome, must be pursued further when looking at the young who have left home. I hope that the Departments of Social Security and of the Environment will take a fresh look at the young homeless, who are the most blatant example of today's poor.
My second general point is that one can plot the income changes of the typical married couple. They often start life together with two incomes, but that falls to one income when they start a family. Subsequently, when the family has grown up, it reverts to one and a half or sometimes two incomes. One can thereby plot the changes in income.
One can also plot the changes in commitments—typically, a mortgage and the cost of bringing up children. If one plots the income flow of a family against its commitments, one finds that its income is at its lowest at the point when its commitments are at their highest. With only one wage earner, the mortgage takes a disproportionate portion of income, and there is the responsibility of child rearing.
We should put some work into seeing whether we can rearrange the flow of income available to families in a way that more rationally matches their commitments, so that they do not find at the age of 45 or 50, when the responsibility of child rearing is over and the mortgage is paid off, that they have surplus cash which they desperately needed when they were younger. I leave that thought with the Minister in the hope that we shall find a way round that mismatch of resources against commitments.
Related to that is the resource that many people have when they retire—a house that is worth a substantial sum—whereas those living in it may be on low incomes. Having encouraged people to turn income into capital throughout their lives by encouraging them to purchase


homes, we should do more to encourage them to change the capital back into income when they retire, when they need the income and when it is often a waste of resources for them to pass the capital on to their children, who are often enjoying higher living standards than they are.
We need only look at the increase in expenditure on benefits—20 per cent. more in real terms since the Conservatives came to power—the increase in the value of benefits and the number of new benefits to see that the case for resisting the Opposition's charge and supporting the Government amendment is extremely strong.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: It is absolutely unbelievable that we should be told that poverty is the result of changed life styles or circumstances, and that it could be alleviated by helping those who have nothing to manage nothing more sensibly so that they can get out of the poverty trap.
To suggest that that can be done demonstrates how the Government seek to put a human face on the scandal of their actions against poor and low-paid members of the community. The Guardian was right last month to say that the social fund must be regarded as the most shocking and cynical piece of so-called welfare machinery ever to have been put in place.
The strategy of the Government is to try to make the poor vanish. The Secretary of State should be called to account for presiding over his Department at a time of moral dereliction in what is happening to our people and over what the Government claim their intentions to be. The reality of what is going on in vast numbers of people's lives is positively surreal.
It is surreal to tell women on benefit, pensioners and single parents who are struggling to make their meagre incomes pay increased charges, such as the poll tax and rent increases, that the answer to their problem is to manage their incomes more sensibly.
It is surreal to tell unemployed women who enter training schemes in an effort to return to the paid labour market that the money they receive by way of grant must be directly deducted from their income support. It means them struggling to make ends meet at the same time as they are trying to be trained.
It is surreal for the Government to claim that it is right to freeze child benefit, and then to say that they are interested in the fate of women as they try to return to the paid labour market. Even those women in Avon who manage to return to work earn only 64 per cent. of the pay given to men in the same labour market.
I will give a few examples of case work, of which there are many hundreds, because they are the sort of cases about which I frequently write to the Minister. These examples show not only how people are unable to escape poverty but how they are being drawn positively into the poverty trap by the Government's meanness.
I cite the case of a couple who found themselves homeless and had to enter bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That cost them £112 a week. Their total income, including housing benefit, was £111. In other words, they did not have enough to pay for their bed-and-breakfast accommodation, let alone live. That is how surreal are the intentions of the Government.
Tell young people trapped in board-and-lodging accommodation how to manage on the £5 to £17 a week that they have left after they have paid their lodgings. Can the Government persuade them that their policies are designed to get them out of the poverty trap? The Government are confining them to the poverty trap.
Imagine the plight of people who are anxious to return to work but who need clothes or equipment to enable them to enter the paid labour market. Such people are now denied grant with which to buy specialist clothing or equipment. The Government do not understand what the poverty trap is about.
I invite the Government to explain their policies to a constituent of mine whose wife is suffering from Huntington's chorea. He gave up work to look after her some years ago. Her condition has deteriorated to such an extent that she has had to be admitted to a specialist private nursing home. No other nursing home would accept her. The cost of that nursing is £320 a week. The total amount that that family can claim from the Government is £275 a week, so there is a difference of £45 which that unemployed family must find each week. That husband and his 13-year-old daughter are trapped in a vicious poverty cycle. Would the Government tell them that they are being extravagant in their budgeting?

Mrs. Audrey Wise: I have drawn the attention of the Minister to the plight of a constituent of mine, although I understand that there has been a change in the circumstances of the case since I raised the matter with him.
My constituent removed from institutional care his severely handicapped adult brother, having decided to look after him personally. I accept that he had no legal responsibility to do that. He did it out of love and family loyalty, thereby saving the state a great deal of money. He is given by the grateful state an income of £34·90. The severely handicapped brother is dependent entirely on benefit. Between them they have an income of about £100 a week.
Would the Minister care for a severely mentally handicapped brother, if he had one, for £34·90 a week? Would he be grateful if he was then told by the Governmeent, "There will be another premium of £10 a week. You are lucky to be living under a Tory Government"? I intervene to tell that story because it is the sort of case to which my hon. Friend is referring so eloquently.

Ms. Primarolo: I entirely agree. That is yet another illustration of the fact that the Government's rhetoric is completely divorced from any understanding of what is happening in people's lives.
A constituent has written to me complaining about the Government's strategy to help disabled people to retrain or return to full-time education. If someone is given a place on a full-time course, he is no longer regarded as ill, and therefore cannot qualify for any form of benefit. Education and training attract various kinds of maintenance funding, but that funding does not take account of the special living costs of the chronically ill and their families.
The Government's famous report on the disabled, which has just been published, admits that the majority of disabled adults live in family units containing low earners trapped in poverty. If they have jobs, those jobs are poorly


paid. The study carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys does not make it clear whether low pay follows from disability or whether those in low-paid occupations are more likely to become disabled. The truth is probably a combination of the two: class inequality and the oppression of the poor combine to produce patterns of inequality and disadvantage. The Government are reinforcing those patterns, not challenging them, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Tim Devlin: I shall be as brief as I can, but I must say at the outset that it is entirely unfair for Opposition Members to speak for so long and to allow such long interventions from other Opposition Members who have no intention of speaking. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get a move on."] The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) also took far too long to open the debate.
Yesterday a report was published by the Church of England attacking what it called the "injustice of urban poverty". The report observed:
It is the corporate responsibility of the community to reflect the justice of God and it is the responsibility of the Church to remind the body politic of its obligation to do so, not simply in a carping, critical sense, but also in positive recognition".
Introducing the report, Bishop Butler of Willesden said that
he did not believe the situation to be as grave as four years ago, when the Faith in the Cities report was published, because the problems were now high on the Government's agenda.
That is in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph.
I came to the House in June 1987. On 12 September 1987, the Prime Minister visited my constituency to launch the inner-city programme from Teesside: £160 million was to be invested in Teesside, and in each of the other five second-generation urban development corporations. Since then, there has been a third generation, and a crop of mini-urban development corporations has ensued.
Most of the poverty about which Opposition Members profess to be so upset is to be found in our inner-city areas. The purpose of the inner-cities initiative was to invest in those deprived areas—such as the northern and eastern corners of my constituency, which are now covered by the Teesside development corporation. At the same time, the Government introduced major reforms in the social security system—changes in the employment benefits and regulations—and began to invest huge sums in inner-city housing.
In today's edition of The Daily Telegraph, next to the report of the Church of England's new initiative, is an article headed "£190 million extra to rescue decaying estates". The result of those endeavours has been a significant reduction in unemployment throughout the land. In my constituency, it is down from 7,109 to 4,956, a fall of 44 per cent. Across the country, there was a fall of 25 per cent. in the inner cities last year. Government spending of £3·5 billion on the inner cities has been matched by spending of £55·6 billion on the social security budget as a whole, a real-terms increase of 36 per cent. since 1979.
Earlier in the debate, we heard some talk from the Liberal party—the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) is not here now—about the measurement of poverty. I think that all hon. Members would find that task difficult. Certainly a

number of people—even in my constituency, in the inner part of Teesside—are, by any standards, living in poverty, and many are still living on benefits or low incomes. About one third of the population either receive income support, or have incomes only 40 per cent. above the income support rate. The problem is, however—as I would have said to the right hon. Member if he were here—that:, if that is taken as the poverty line, every time benefits are increased to combat poverty the number of people below the line increases.
According to the Labour party, however, the measurement of poverty must be relative rather than absolute. In 1976, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), then Minister of State for Social Services, said:
Poverty is a relative matter, and the Government do not accept that a simple poverty line can be drawn."—[Official Report, 26 October 1976; Vol. 918, c. 255.]
New Society also condemned the concept of absolute poverty in 1986.
Taking the relative view of poverty, Labour politicians now claim that the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer; yet if we examine income levels, we find that in real terms they have grown at all levels. Nevertheless, let me say a word of caution to the Government. Between 1979 and 1985, the incomes of the poorest tenth of households rose by approximately 6 per cent. in real terms, and the average increase for the whole population was 9 per cent. In terms of living standards, however, the picture may be somewhat different—and here I sound a note of caution to Opposition Members before they condemn us for that earlier statistic.
Between 1981 and 1985, the poorest 10 per cent. improved their living standards by 8·3 per cent., while the figure for the whole population was only 6·4 per cent. In the north of England, where I come from, massive strides have been made. Although income levels are generally lower than in the south-east, living standards are generally higher: 10 years ago, hardly any households possessed videos, microwave ovens or home computers, whereas today one household in five has a home computer, one in three has a microwave and half have videos. Share ownership in the region has reached 13 per cent.
That picture of rising living standards across the board has passed a few people by. The Labour party need not crow as I acknowledge that, for I am every bit as concerned as other hon. Members to remedy the problem. People on half average earnings have experienced a significant increase in their take-home pay under the Conservative Government; under Labour, it was actually cut.
Perhaps the solution is to integrate jobcentres with unemployment offices and to place them as near to their client population as possible; that is the solution that I propose for Thornaby, in my constituency. Certainly we can have nothing but praise for the inner-cities initiative, which is transforming our region and the rougher parts of other regions and cities.
In my region, two issues concern me particularly: the plight of the elderly and the condition of the housing stock. As I said in an earlier intervention, I hear a good deal from pensioners about how little they have on which to live, and I have considerable sympathy for some. On average, however, pensioners' total net income grew by 23 per cent. above inflation between 1979 and 1986—twice as fast as


the growth in the incomes of the mass of the population, and by as much each year as in all five years of the last Labour Government.
Pensioners tell me that they cannot keep up with price rises, and that I cannot tell them how well off they are. I would not pretend for a moment that they are wealthy; next April, however, the single person's pension will increase to £46·90, and the couple's pension to £75·10. Moreover, 70 per cent. of those who are now retiring have some form of occupational pension. In October, the Government announced a package of measures costing £200 million a year to give additional help to pensioners on income support and housing benefit.
During the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, we debated very briefly the position in Europe. He conceded that his point about the better-off pensioners of Europe was not quite as well-founded as he had thought. Let me quote for his benefit the words of Dorothy Rhodes, the president of Pensioners' Voice:
We have talked about the percentages of pensions in Europe, and I have been one who has spoken loudly in support of parity with Europe, but during the past year I have been to Pensioners Congresses in Italy and Greece and, having spoken at length to those who actually receive the Euro pensions … and discovered that in many cases the actual cash received in relation to the cost of living is often lower than in the UK, I am revising my opinion; for in no way can our Federation ask for an equality that would disadvantage our own people.
Of particular note is the extra carers' allowance for those looking after people who are ill and the earnings limit for those on invalid care allowance, which will be increased by 66 per cent. This, I believe, will go some way to offset the impact of what has been called the granny tax—the provision whereby no reduction in community charge is available for elderly relatives living at home. In my view, that point also needs some further attention from the Government.
I was going to say something about housing stock in the north of England, but I shall leave that for a housing debate. What I can say is that the Opposition have sought to mislead the House, and I urge hon. Members to support the amendment.

Ms. Clare Short: In the limited time available, it will be difficult to answer some of the grossly misleading statements that have been made by the Secretary of State and by other hon. Members speaking in support of the Government. I know that the Secretary of State is a very intelligent man, so I assume that what he did was absolutely deliberate. That makes it less honourable than the course taken by some of his hon. Friends, who read Central Office handouts and believe all the fabricated statistics that are fed out. Indeed, I have a copy of such a handout, so I recognise large parts of the speech that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) has just made.
The Secretary of State claimed that we have had unusually high economic growth under this Government. That is absolutely false. I have here a table showing economic growth since 1948—year by year, cumulatively, and in graph form. The table shows that under this Government the average economic growth has been 2·2 per cent—less than the growth under many previous

Governments. What the Government say about there having been an economic miracle is just not true. It is false, deceitful, and dishonest. These statistics from the House of Commons Library, which we all accept, show it to be so. I do not know why, in a debate on poverty, the Secretary of State should claim to have had such enormous economic growth. If he lives in our society, he must know that many people are now really struggling. Indeed, if we had had the economic miracle that the Secretary of State claims we have had, it would be even more shameful that that should be so.
The Secretary of State went on to claim that all is well, and that the Government have been deeply generous and caring. It is not so. Our country is more deeply divided and more unequal than it has been at any time since the second world war, and the people who live in the country understand that. In response to every poll and every survey of British social attitudes, they say that Britain is now too deeply divided, that they are against that, and that they want to see the division and the inequality reversed.
We have too many pensioners struggling to make their money last week by week. I meet many of them at my advice bureaux and as I go around Birmingham. People come up to me on the street and say, "I have managed all these years, but I am finding it really difficult now." Do the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends live in the society that we live in? Do they talk to people who have to live on state benefits? They say that twice the Labour Government failed to pay the Christmas bonus, yet they have deliberately changed the uprating of pensions so that a single pensioner gets £13 less every week, and a couple £20-odd less. Are they not ashamed to play those games? The Secretary of State should be ashamed of himself.
This is not a game about Christmas bonuses of long ago, before people like me were elected to this House. If bonuses were cancelled, that is regrettable, but a reduction of £13 or £20 a week for people who are finding life difficult—people, indeed, who cannot manage—is an absolute outrage. But the Government did this deliberately. The funds were available, but money has been taken away from the worst-off pensioners in order to give tax cuts to the richest people. And the Secretary of State belongs to a Government who have done that deliberately.
We have a record number of people on low pay. The Government have introduced a whole series of measures deliberately to encourage people to do low-paid work. They have even given employers subsidies conditional on wages being low. If there were more time, I could go through the list of measures. Indeed, the Government have deliberately incited low-paid work. They have pushed many citizens who want the pride and dignity of work into living in poverty and having to claim benefits. People do not like it, and it is economically inefficient. It means that we, the taxpayers—and increasingly the bulk of tax is paid by lower paid workers—are subsidising the most inefficient employers—employers who pay low wages, who do not train, who do not invest, and who have a high rate of labour turnover. It is unjust, it is unequal, it deprives people of the dignity of going to work, and it is economically inefficient. It is not the way to build a modern, high-pay, high-skill economy. It is a disaster for the lives of people, and it is a disaster for the British economy.
We are told that, suddenly, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are concerned about lone parents. That is difficult to believe. Big poverty traps have been built for


lone parents by the cumulative effect of this Government's benefit changes. We have a higher proportion of lone parents relying on benefits than ever before. The Government have deliberately brought that about. They are eroding the value of child benefit—the one non-means-tested benefit that helps people such as lone parents to climb off benefits and into work. They are forced to rely on means-tested benefit.
What other change have the Government made? It used to be possible for a lone parent working part time to claim benefit to top up income and to have the cost of child care taken into account—a step out of one parenthood into part-time work, hopefully enabling the parent, as the children get older, to move into full-time work and independence, and not to have to rely on benefit. But the Government have abolished that. They have made that impossible. They have created poverty traps, forcing lone parents into reliance on benefits. So I fear that all this talk of encouraging fathers to maintain their children—and, of course, I agree completely with that principle—is not about caring for those children or those families; it is about saving even more money on the benefit bill. It is as cynical as that. That is the Government's intention.
These problems of inequality and poverty are not an accident; they are the deliberate result of Government policy. One of the major objectives of Government policy was to increase incentives. They said so very clearly. This meant that the rich could keep more of their income, and those less well off—always a contradiction that we pointed out—had to be squeezed harder, had to be given an incentive to work harder in order to become better off. The Government set about systematically changing the benefit and taxation system in order to move money from those with less to those with more. The figures are absolutely clear. I have quoted them before, but it is important to the House and to the country to base debates such as this on the truth rather than on fabricated statistics that seek deliberately to mislead. Let me quote from Hills—and I invite any hon. Member to crawl over these statistics in detail. Since 1979
the cuts in direct taxes have been entirely paid for by cuts in the generosity of benefits…Overall, the bottom 60 per cent. of the income distribution has lost, while the top 30 per cent.—especially the top 10 per cent.—has gained…The losses for the bottom 50 per cent. average out at nearly £8·50 per family…while the top 10 per cent. have gained nearly £40 per family. Overall, the bottom half of the population has lost £6·6 billion"—
£6·6 billion has been deliberately taken away from them, producing the kind of poverty problems about which we have been talking.—
of which £5·6 billion has gone to the top 10 per cent.; indeed, £4·8 billion has gone to the top 5 per cent.
As the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) said, the poll tax will make the position much worse. The statistics will become even more gross.
Let us not pretend that any Conservative Member thinks that any of the poverty in this country is regrettable. Britain is the 15th richest country in the world. If we want to be fair, we have the capacity to ensure that all our people are cared for and can live a decent life in a fair society. The Government have deliberately made things more unequal, taken money away from pensioners and encouraged low pay; then they have pretended that that is not so. I have no respect for that attitude.
The Government stood for monetarism, or Thatcherism, which meant increased inequality which they claimed would increase incentives, plus the mumbo-jumbo, which has been proved false, about M0, M3 and the medium-term financial strategy, which now happily has been forgotten with the resignation of the former Chancellor. The Secretary of State should be honest and speak the truth. He is part of a Government who have deliberately made many of our people much poorer and who have increased poverty to give enormous tax handouts to some of the richest people. The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for that policy. The British people do not like it, and we do not like it, which is why we are increasingly confident that we will soon have a Labour Government. We will implement the policies in our policy review, creating fairness and pathways out of poverty. That will mean a better Britain and a fairer future.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Tonight, 11,000 people will sleep on the streets of London in cardboard boxes around the National theatre. Is it in order for the House to confine a debate on the crisis of poverty and homelessness to rather less than two hours in order to spend three hours discussing football? I am sure that you agree, Sir, that the House should find ways to spend more time discussing the crisis of poverty rather than the issue of football which, although significant, has no importance compared with the poverty of the people of Britain.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): That is a matter for the House, not the Chair. I am aware that the hon. Member is one of a number of Members who hoped to speak but so far have been disappointed.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The subjects for debate and the time allocated to them on Opposition days are matters for the Opposition Front Bench. If the Opposition shared the view of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), they could have spent a whole day on this subject, and we would have welcomed it.

Mr. Tony Favell: If Labour Members are so concerned, why are there only 11 Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber?

Mr. Scott: The Labour party must answer that. Labour has ordered the priorities; we are simply responding to them.
On Second Reading of the Social Security Bill, I said that, as society changes, social security systems must change to reflect those changes. It is no secret that we believe that, in the immediate past, today and in the future, the overall aim should be increasingly to target—I prefer the word "focus"—extra resources on those who really need the most help. To do that, we undertake a range of monitoring exercises to establish the facts, rather than listen to the type of rhetoric that we have heard from the Opposition today.
We have monitored the system carefully and have made adjustments, as anyone who looks at it in a fair-minded way would have to recognise. We conduct research, collect statistics, analyse the cases of Members of Parliament and look at an endless flow of articles, books, programmes and


so on—and, not least, we listen to the House on this issue. [Interruption.] We fine-tune the system. We try to establish those parts of the social security system where the shoe pinches unduly and make adjustments to it. We have helped families on low incomes, whether in or out of work. We have adjusted the system to concentrate extra help on the poorest elderly and disabled pensioners. We have changed the capital limit on housing benefit. We have done a number of things because we have listened to debates in the House and evidence from outside and have been prepared to fine-tune the system.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Scott: I have had to endure an intervention on a point of order from the hon. Member for Islington, North, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Field: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Everyone is pleased at the small changes that the Government have made. The Opposition repeatedly make the case that the basic benefits are inadequate. Will the Government act on that matter?

Mr. Scott: In real terms, benefits have been improved—perhaps just a little—under the Government. [Interruption.] All right, but benefits are certainly better than they were under the Labour Government. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, coverage has increased massively, which means that those on benefit as a whole have had a substantial increase in resources under this Government.
We have listened carefully to the more dispassionate and constructive contributions to the debate. We will obviously weigh all the evidence and the contributions in the balance when we decide priorities. The further that those on the Opposition Front Bench get from having experienced the responsibilities of government, the more they come to fall under the magic wand syndrome—the idea that, somehow, when Labour Members return to office, they will be able to find resources to make improvements across a range of issues. Now that Labour Members are perhaps approaching the halfway mark in their period of opposition, they are even further away from reality than normal. There are no magic wands in government. Government is about priorities and hard choices. We have made those choices, and will continue to do so, based on real priorities which we have established.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) asked about the publication of official statistics on living standards over the past five years and asked when we expected to publish the next edition. We will publish them in the near future, but the Social Services Select Committee has asked us to study the possibilities of considering at the same time publishing comparative data on earlier years, and we are looking into those possibilities. We certainly have no intention of delaying publication of the series on average household incomes.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West made comparisons between EC countries which were highly misleading. There are significant differences in the structures of pensions throughout the European Community, as he well knows. In theory, it may appear that other states' retirement pensions are higher than ours,

but in practice few people may qualify and many may be paid well below the standard, let alone the maximum, rates.
A point was made in an intervention about unemployment. I rebut the idea that our performance has fallen below European standards. At 5·8 per cent. United Kingdom unemployment is well below the EC average—below the rates in France, the Netherlands, Spain and Italy—and over the past two years the unemployment rate has fallen faster in the United Kingdom than in any other major industrial country. The largest falls in unemployment have been in the north, Wales and Scotland.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Scott: I will not give way.
No one denies that poverty exists. It has existed under Labour and Conservative Governments. The important point is that we seek to see that poverty is alleviated to the maximum possible degree. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) said, people at all income levels are far better off. By definition, there was more poverty under the last Labour Government than under the present Conservative Government. The Labour Government had a chronic inability to run a successful economy, so they were unable to fulfil their laudable objectives. The Labour party is good on rhetoric, but pretty poor on achievement. Like the late lain Macleod, I believe that a successful competitive economy is the engine of a compassionate society. More people have benefited because of our economic success.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 287.

Divison No. 56]
[7 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cartwright, John


Allen, Graham
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Alton, David
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clay, Bob


Armstrong, Hilary
Clelland, David


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cohen, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Corbett, Robin


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Cousins, Jim


Battle, John
Crowther, Stan


Beckett, Margaret
Cryer, Bob


Beggs, Roy
Cummings, John


Beith, A. J.
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bell, Stuart
Cunningham, Dr John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dalyell, Tarn


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n amp; R'dish)
Darling, Alistair


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Blair, Tony
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Blunkett, David
Dewar, Donald


Boateng, Paul
Dixon, Don


Boyes, Roland
Dobson, Frank


Bradley, Keith
Doran, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Douglas, Dick


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Buchan, Norman
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Caborn, Richard
Eadie, Alexander


Callaghan, Jim
Eastham, Ken


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fearn, Ronald


Canavan, Dennis
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)






Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fisher, Mark
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Flannery, Martin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Flynn, Paul
Morgan, Rhodri


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morley, Elliot


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foster, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foulkes, George
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fraser, John
Mullin, Chris


Fyfe, Maria
Murphy, Paul


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Nellist, Dave


George, Bruce
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
O'Brien, William


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Neill, Martin


Gordon, Mildred
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Graham, Thomas
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Patchett, Terry


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Pendry, Tom


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pike, Peter L.


Harman, Ms Harriet
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Prescott, John


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Primarolo, Dawn


Heffer, Eric S.
Quin, Ms Joyce


Henderson, Doug
Randall, Stuart


Hinchliffe, David
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Richardson, Jo


Hogg, N. (C'nauld amp; Kilsyth)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Home Robertson, John
Rogers, Allan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Rooker, Jeff


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Howells, Geraint
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Rowlands, Ted


Hoyle, Doug
Ruddock, Joan


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Sheerman, Barry


Illsley, Eric
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Ingram, Adam
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Janner, Greville
Short, Clare


Jones, Barry (Alyn amp; Deeside)
Sillars, Jim


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kennedy, Charles
Smith, C. (Isl'ton amp; F'bury)


Kilfedder, James
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lamond, James
Snape, Peter


Leadbitter, Ted
Soley, Clive


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Litherland, Robert
Stott, Roger


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Strang, Gavin


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Straw, Jack


Loyden, Eddie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McAllion, John
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


McAvoy, Thomas
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McCartney, Ian
Turner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum A.
Vaz, Keith


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Wallace, James


McLeish, Henry
Walley, Joan


Maclennan, Robert
Wareing, Robert N.


McNamara, Kevin
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


McWilliam, John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Madden, Max
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Marek, Dr John
Wilson, Brian


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Winnick, David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Worthington, Tony


Maxton, John
Wray, Jimmy


Meacher, Michael
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Meale, Alan



Michael, Alun
Tellers for the Ayes:


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeiey)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Mr. John McFall.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Ashby, David


Amess, David
Aspinwall, Jack


Amos, Alan
Atkins, Robert


Arbuthnot, James
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)





Baldry, Tony
Freeman, Roger


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
French, Douglas


Batiste, Spencer
Fry, Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gale, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
Gardiner, George


Bendall, Vivian
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gill, Christopher


Benyon, W.
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bevan, David Gilroy
Goodlad, Alastair


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Blackburn, Dr John Q.
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gorst, John


Body, Sir Richard
Gow, Ian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bottomley, Peter
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grist, Ian


Bowis, John
Ground, Patrick


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Grylls, Michael


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hanley, Jeremy


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hannam, John


Buck, Sir Antony
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Budgen, Nicholas
Harris, David


Burns, Simon
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, Christopher


Butcher, John
Hayes, Jerry


Butler, Chris
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Butterfill, John
Hayward, Robert


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carttiss, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hind, Kenneth


Chapman, Sydney
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Churchill, Mr
Howarth, G. (Cannock )B'wd)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunter, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Irvine, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Irving, Sir Charles


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jack, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Jackson, Robert


Couchman, James
Janman, Tim


Cran, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Critchley, Julian
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Curry, David
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd )Spald'g)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Key, Robert


Day, Stephen
King, Roger (8'ham N'thfield)


Devlin, Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dicks, Terry
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dover, Den
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dunn, Bob
Knox, David


Durant, Tony
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Eggar, Tim
Lang, Ian


Emery, Sir Peter
Latham, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lawrence, Ivan


Evennett, David
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fallon, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Favell, Tony
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lightbown, David


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lilley, Peter


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Forth, Eric
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Sir Marcus
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Franks, Cecil
Maclean, David






McLoughlin, Patrick
Sackville, Hon Tom


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Shaw, David (Dover)


Madel, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Malins, Humfrey
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb)


Mans, Keith
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Maples, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Marland, Paul
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Marlow, Tony
Shersby, Michael


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sims, Roger


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mates, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maude, Hon Francis
Squire, Robin


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stern, Michael


Mellor, David
Stevens, Lewis


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Miller, Sir Hal
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mills, lain
Summerson, Hugo


Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moate, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Monro, Sir Hector
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morrison, Sir Charles
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Thorne, Neil


Moss, Malcolm
Thornton, Malcolm


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Thurnham, Peter


Mudd, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neale, Gerrard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Nelson, Anthony
Tredinnick, David


Neubert, Michael
Trippier, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Norris, Steve
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Walden, George


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Page, Richard
Waller, Gary


Paice, James
Walters, Sir Dennis


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Warren, Kenneth


Patten, Rt Hon John
Watts, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen


Pawsey, James
Wheeler, Sir John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Widdecombe, Ann


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wiggin, Jerry


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wilshire, David


Portillo, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Powell, William (Corby)
Winterton, Nicholas


Price, Sir David
Wolfson, Mark


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wood, Timothy


Redwood, John
Yeo, Tim


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rhodes James, Robert
Younger, Rt Hon George


Riddick, Graham



Rossi, Sir Hugh
Tellers for the Noes:


Rost, Peter
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes with approval the Government's plans to increase substantially spending on social security in the coming financial year bringing the total to an unprecedented £55·6 billion reflecting further growth on top of the 36 per cent. real terms increase which has taken place since 1978–79; and commends it for introducing a reformed structure of benefits enabling these massive resources to be targeted more effectively on those in need thereby ensuring that, from April this year some 1·5 million families with three million children will again have their income-related benefits increased in real terms bringing the amount of extra help

provided for them to over £350 million in real terms since April 1988, for improving work incentives by virtually eliminating marginal deduction rates in excess of 100 per cent., thus ensuring that working families keep more of the money they earn, and for providing an improved, more accurate and speedier service to the public.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to raise a point of order on the five-page written answer which was given by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces today to the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall). This answer is establishing an inquiry, under Mr. Calcutt, into the reasons for the termination of the employment of Mr. Colin Wallace. In particular, the answer admits that Ministers caused inaccurate statements to be made to the House; that is to say, they misled the House.
But the appeal is to be limited to the handling of an inquiry. Why is Mr. Colin Wallace, who is apparently now being believed on this issue, not going to be allowed to have his views expressed on other matters? We believe that this is of such importance that a five-page written answer is not satisfactory as far as the House is concerned. We therefore ask, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Leader of the House take the appropriate steps tomorrow to ensure that a statement is made, not by the Minister of State, but by the Secretary of State for Defence, about this very pressing matter, which requires the attention and scrutiny of the House as a whole.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I have listened carefully to the point made by the hon. Gentleman and understand why he has raised it in this way. If I may, I will arrange for the matter to be considered through the usual channels in the light of the request that he has made; the House will be informed tomorrow in one way or another what our response is.

Dr. John Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I first welcome the positive response of the Leader of the House? To suggest that this matter be discussed through the usual channels is fine, but I want to press him a little more to say that he will ensure in one way or another that there is a full oral statement to the House of Commons about this very important matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Cecil Franks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of which I gave you notice earlier. It concerns a report on Independent Television News at 5·40 this afternoon concerning the debate in the House on the ten-minute Bill. Independent Television News reported the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), and I have no criticism of that. It then moved to show a panned view of the House from the cameras opposite showing the Government Front Bench, with the following newscaster's comment over the view:
The Government did not bother to reply.
It is the convention of the House, known to every hon. Member and equally well known to every member of the press lobby, that the Government do not speak during a ten-minute Bill.
I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a private Member—I know that other private Members feel exactly as I do—on how I and other private Members may deal with this point. I refer you to "Erskine May", page 121, "Constructive Contempts", and will quote the relevant parts:


Reflections on either House"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman. If, as I think, he is now talking about a possible contempt of the House, or a matter of privilege, he must raise that in writing with Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Franks: Can I see your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and ask you to consider the matter? Can you advise me at this stage whether this is a fit and proper matter for private Members of the House to refer to the Select Committee on broadcasting? To my mind, and to the minds of many other Members of the House, this is a gross distortion of procedure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has now answered his own point. If he feels that there has been a breach of the conventions, he is absolutely right to refer it to the appropriate Select Committee.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Further to the earlier point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can I ask the Leader of the House to ensure not only that a statement is made but that consideration is given overnight by the Government to ensuring that the terms of reference of any inquiry are adequate to deal with what is arguably one of the most serious constitutional crises we have had in recent years? It is something that affects not just one or two individuals but a former Government, and casts a great deal of unfavourable light on an entire Government Department. For that reason, and for the sake of the standing of the House, can the Leader of the House ensure that a full and adequate statement is made explaining precisely what is intended?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the House will feel that this matter has been ventilated now and, furthermore, that the Leader of the House has given an assurance on the matter. I hope, therefore, that the House will feel that, as we are cutting into an important debate in Opposition time, we should let the matter rest there and get on with that debate.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks), Mr. Deputy Speaker, about the television broadcast at 5.40 pm, is it not the case that the Independent Broadcasting Authority has a duty to ensure that ITN has a balanced view of what happens in the House? The fact is that neither the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) nor the Division figures were given in the report. The implication was that there was no opposition to the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman will realise that that is not a matter for the Chair. If he feels that there has been a breach, it is open to him to refer the matter to the Select Committee on broadcasting.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could the letter of 30 January that I received from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on the subject of Colin Wallace be considered? Could one other matter be considered—namely, what we, as Members of Parliament on either side of the House, have to do to get things

examined properly? At unconscionable length and far too often for the patience of many of my colleagues, some of us have gone back and back and back to the issue of Colin Wallace. Now we find that a statement is made:
I greatly regret that the fact that relevant records were not brought to Ministers' attention has in recent years caused inaccurate statements to be made to the House and in both ministerial and official correspondence.
After all that has been said, what about the treatment of the House of Commons?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: These are not matters for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman must use his well-known ingenuity to raise the matter.

Mr. Tony Benn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to detain the House, but the issues raised go beyond a disciplinary question in the Ministry of Defence. What Colin Wallace said he did, and what he did, was to publish disinformation about Members of the House. I have in my possession leaflets published by his organisation involving certainly my right hon. Friends the Members for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), and myself. Therefore, this cannot just be a question of a Ministry of Defence disciplinary inquiry.
If false information was authorised by the Ministry of Defence, designed to damage the reputations of people who were Members of Parliament—the fact that they were Ministers at the time is almost secondary—then, overnight, Mr. Speaker should consider the implications for the House as a whole before the statement is made, so that the interest of the House in the matter can be taken into account. The House is concerned quite as much as the Ministry of Defence, which did this man a grave injustice.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the Leader of the House, when a statement is being made, consider setting up a Select Committee on Northern Ireland so that there may be proper scrutiny in the House of the affairs of Northern Ireland? You, Sir, and hon. Members will realise now some of the difficulties that we have in scrutinising business.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope the House will feel that the matter has been ventilated. The Leader of the House has already responded. I understood the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), to accept the assurance.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: When I have called the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that we can get on with the next debate.

Mr. Rees: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House has responded, and I hope that there will be a statement tomorrow. As I think the written answer reveals, I was consulted because I was a Minister at the time. I have no complaint about that. Certainly, as will be revealed, these things were not given ministerial approval. There are various documents. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has one. I have a document from an American thanking me for donations to the Provisional IRA.
There was a dirty tricks set-up outside what is in the parliamentary answer. I have raised this because I want the Leader of the House to know that we do not want to


consider just the Ministry of Defence aspect, which is important. There is more to the matter than that. I hope that by tomorrow afternoon he will have considered it so that we can raise all these issues and not just the narrow point.

Orders of the Day — Football Grounds (Safety)

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the thorough and thoughtful report made by Lord Justice Taylor into the causes of the Hillsborough disaster and regards its proposals as the basis for major improvements in the organisation of Association Football; endorses his outright rejection of the football identity card scheme and regrets the time and money which has been wasted on a scheme generally accepted as likely to increase rather than reduce the risk of disorder and injury at football grounds; and calls upon the Government to introduce the changes in the criminal law which the report recommends, to initiate discussions with football clubs and football supporters about the cost and advisability of all-seat grounds for every league club and to reduce the pools betting duty to its pre-1982 level, thereby releasing money which would be available for many of the improvements in safety and facilities in football grounds recommended by Lord Justice Taylor.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Hattersley: I shall not spend much time on the unlamented football identity card scheme. The debate is about improving safety at football grounds and the conditions in which football is watched. As Lord Justice Taylor makes clear, the identity card scheme, far from assisting to achieve those objectives, would have made football grounds more dangerous and more disorderly.
There are only two things that need to be said by way of requiem about the identity card proposal. First, it was a diversion which delayed real progress towards improvement over two years. Second, by advocating the scheme, the Government, as well as showing how little they understood about football, demonstrated their scant concern for the people who live and work in the immediate vicinity of football grounds. We know that identity card schemes, had they even reduced hooliganism inside football grounds, which in itself is debatable, as Lord Justice Taylor said, would have made hooliganism a feature immediately outside football grounds. To compound that mistake, the Home Secretary, in a long statement yesterday, had absolutely nothing to say about safety and civil order outside and around football grounds. Yet the safety and well-being of the shops and houses in those areas should be an essential part of any new deal for football.

Mr. John Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman has talked about shops and houses near football grounds. He seems to forget that a successful membership scheme in my constituency has resulted in peace around the football ground on Saturday afternoons. It has been welcomed by residents, shopkeepers and pub landlords in the town and has had a contrary effect to the effect about which the right hon. Gentleman is trying to mislead the House.

Mr. Hattersley: I have heard the hon. Gentleman make that point often; but does he not know the nature of the Luton scheme, or does he choose to misinterpret it? The Luton scheme is intended to, and does, keep supporters out of the ground altogether. That was never the intention of anything that even the Government suggested. The hon.


Gentleman cannot compare the Luton scheme with any scheme which might apply to the whole Football League. He does his case no service by attempting to do so.
Our support for the changes in the criminal law which Lord Justice Taylor recommends is based on our desire to see improvements in the conduct inside football grounds and our determination to ensure that people with shops and houses in the areas around football grounds should be able to live in peace on Saturday afternoons and Wednesday evenings. Were the Home Secretary to introduce the changes in the law which the Taylor report proposes, we would support them. We would support a more vigorous use of exclusion orders to ensure that hooligans were kept away from the game. We urge the Home Secretary to remind magistrates, who have not made use of that power as extensively as they might, that it is available to them.
We support the extension of attendance orders, which could prevent convicted hooligans from even approaching a football ground on a Saturday afternoon, by requiring them to perform community service on match days. We urge the Home Secretary to make available sufficient attendance centres to give real force to such punishment. We support the proposal that racial and obscene chanting should become a criminal offence. We understand perfectly well, as the report makes clear, that in some circumstances such behaviour is already a prosecutable offence, but Lord Justice Taylor is right to say that making it a specific offence in and around football grounds will concentrate the minds of those who might indulge in such behavious and the minds of those who want to arrest and prosecute them.
I hope that, when the Home Secretary has completed his passages of ritual abuse, he will make it clear whether the Government are as positive as the Opposition in their support for those Taylor proposals.
Yesterday the right hon. and learned Gentleman was equivocal about the need for the new powers and evasive about the Government's attitude to them so I asked him directly, "Will he, or will he not, implement those parts of the report which not only take direct action against hooliganism inside grounds, but provide protection to families who live near football clubs?" I repeat and emphasise that were the right hon. and learned Gentleman to introduce such legislation he would certainly have our wholehearted support.
As well as omitting any reference to the problems outside grounds, the Home Secretary had nothing to say yesterday about those aspects of crowd control, encouraged over the years by the Government, which, as Lord Justice Taylor said, are a stimulus, rather than a deterrent, to brutal behaviour. Opposition Members warned the Government about the problems of high and spiked perimeter fences. I now ask the Home Secretary whether he supports Lord Taylor's call for their removal. Opposition Members warned against supporters being treated like prisoners and locked into grounds until it was thought convenient for them to leave. Will the Home Secretary endorse our view that to treat supporters like savages is to encourage them to behave like savages? For that matter, we asked for legislation against ticket touts; Lord Justice Taylor makes the same demand. Will the Home Secretary now act on that proposal? Until now, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been prepared fully to endorse only one item in the Taylor report.
Everybody agrees that there is a desperate need for an improvement in the organisation of association football and the standards and conditions of the grounds at which it is played. Today we must decide whether the Government wish to assist in making that progress or whether they wish simply to strike another tough posture to cover their embarrassment over the identity card fiasco. Yesterday, to the surprise, I think, of some Conservative Back Benchers as well to Opposition Members' surprise, he made a statement that was wholly at odds with the established philosophy of the Government and the new Tory party. A Government who normally condemn intervention in any form and who regard regulation as always damaging and usually distasteful announced that they proposed to intervene to regulate and control our national game as the game is not controlled or regulated in any other western country. I hope that the Home Secretary—I know him to be a philosopher—will describe the principles behind that sudden change of heart and his new enthusiasm for regulation and intervention.
Of course we all agree that the Government are right and that the Government have a right—indeed, they have a duty—to intervene to ensure the safety of football grounds. It is also the Government's right—indeed, the Government's duty—to regulate to ensure that football matches are conducted in a way that is acceptable to the population in general. I want to make absolutely clear my position on the way in which the Government should discharge that duty. For my part, enthusiast for the game though I am, I should be prepared to watch football clubs go bankrupt and the game change out of all recognition if that was the only way of protecting life, avoiding injury and preventing hooliganism. Over the years, the debate has been too much concerned with the problems internal to football and not sufficiently concerned with football's place in society.
I do not believe, however, that those proper objectives, which I hope the Home Secretary seeks—the protection of life, the avoidance of injury and the prevention of hooliganism—will be best achieved by the Government's simply announcing that all football grounds must replace their terraces with seats in 10 years' time and that first and second division clubs must do so by 1994. The problem is far more complex than that; there is much more to be done than that; and much greater understanding is needed than that implies.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will my hon. Friend accept it from me that one of the problems to be dealt with is that third and fourth division clubs can certainly not afford the move to all-seater stadiums, even over nine years? The only way of solving the problem is for local authorities to be given a share of the pools funds levies to build multi-purpose stadiums for soccer, hockey, summer athletics and a wide range of other sports, as is done in every other civilised country.

Mr. Hattersley: I want to deal in a moment with the financing of all the improvements that we all want to be made. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) says that some third and fourth division clubs may go out of business if they are not given proper financial assistance in introducing all-seater stadiums. I disagree with him in one particular: I fear that some second, and perhaps even first, division clubs will go out of business. I know that the Minister for Sport has a tenuous


relationship with Millwall football club in his constituency. [HON. MEMBERS: "Charlton."] All right, just outside his constituency. I know that he has a relationship with that club. Millwall told me that he had written asking whether he might visit the club in the following season, and that it had replied that the fixture list for the following season had not yet been published and it was not sure which division it would be in anyway. Perhaps the Minister for Sport would care to ask Millwall how it will fare in the conversion to all-seater stadiums. There are clubs in the first division—Wimbledon may be one and Millwall may be another—that may find themselves in mortal difficulty by 1994 unless some specific assistance is given in providing them with the facilities that they need.
I repeat what I said yesterday: I am in favour of replacing the terraces by seats. The argument concerns the way in which that should be done. The Government delude themselves if they think that, by simply announcing that it is a statutory obligation that must be observed by an arbitrary date, they will have solved all the problems of football. Let me give an example, which the Home Secretary found it difficult to comprehend yesterday in the brief time that was available to me to explain to him the realities of the situation. Whether the Home Secretary likes it or not, and whether I like it or not—and, heaven knows, I have no wish to stand on the terraces any more; I want to watch football from the comfort of a seat—

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): Bourgeois deviation.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Nothing is too good for the working class lad.

Mr. Hattersley: Absolutely.
I am passionately enthusiastic about seats being available for everyone who wants them. But whether the Home Secretary likes it or not, whether he finds it deviant or not, and whether it is to my liking or not, a substantial number of law-abiding supporters prefer to stand and, whether the Home Secretary understands that or not, that will cause him great problems in 1994 unless he is prepared to accommodate them. Queen's Park Rangers replaced part of its terraces with seats and then had to replace the seats with terraces because the supporters chose not to sit down but to stand in aisles and gangways, and that is a much more dangerous business than standing on terraces.

Mr. Denis Howell: So did Coventry.

Mr. Hattersley: As my right hon. Friend reminds me, so did Coventry.
I hope that I shall not be breaching any confidence if I tell the House that, as we left the Chamber yesterday, I asked the Home Secretary, "Is it really right that football supporters can stand up as long as they stand up in front of a seat?" The Home Secretary, with his usual charm, said, "Don't be stupid. Of course it is."

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): I am sure that I did not say anything of the sort, but if I had said it, it would have been entirely accurate. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the proposal made by Taylor is that the licensing authority will, by stages, eventually prevent clubs from

inviting people into areas where there are no seats. It has absolutely nothing to do with the obligations of those who are admitted to those areas, and the right hon. Gentleman must face up to that. Yesterday he made the nonsensical proposition that what Taylor proposed would involve making it a criminal offence for anyone to stand up in the stand. I have never heard such arrant nonsense in all my life.

Mr. Hattersley: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Home Secretary and I are not in collusion as a two-man comedy act. I had no idea that he would answer in that way.
However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has confirmed my point. Nobody is suggesting that Taylor would make it a criminal offence to stand up—[Interruption.] Well, I am suggesting that Taylor will not make it a criminal offence to stand up. However, unless the Home Secretary behaves sensibly, in some grounds people will stand up in front of the seats in large numbers. If the Home Secretary would be so good as to consult the various police organisations, he would discover that the police regard standing in seated areas as a far greater threat to safety, to order and to the good conduct of the game than standing on the terraces. It is no good the Home Secretary brushing these facts of life aside, because if he turns round he will see that those of his hon. Friends who have some acquaintance with football are confirming that these are real problems. I draw them to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention only because I want them solved.
If the Home Secretary hopes to overcome those real problems, which until today it appears that he did not know existed, he will have to take the game with him rather than attempt to impose his and the Government's will on the game.

Mr. Alistair Burt: The problems to which the right hon. Gentleman refers go right to the heart of the issue. He is seeking to defend the right of people to stand on the terraces. If he has read the opening chapters of the Taylor report, I cannot believe that he does not realise that, as Taylor states, this is the ninth report on crowd safety and that it is adherence to the culture that he is talking about that has eventually caused the disasters that we have seen. Taking all the factors that he has described into account, I cannot believe that he regards what he has said as the right answer. How can the right hon. Gentleman disagree with the weight of evidence after so many disasters and so many other reports?

Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of reading what I have said in Hansard when he gets it tomorrow, he will find that all I have done up to now is to draw the Home Secretary's attention to a problem that he will face if he proceeds in this way—

Mr. David Blunkett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I intervene only because of the intervention that has just been made by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) and the hon. Gentleman's erroneous suggestion. The disaster at Hillsborough on 15 April was not caused because sufficient seats were not available in the stadium or because the club had not invested in proper facilities. As everyone knows, and as Taylor has confirmed, it was caused because of the total inadequacies of the planning and organisation at that


game, the lack of co-ordination, the inadequacy of the access, and the penning and the fencing at the Leppings lane end. I do not want any hon. Member ever to repeat again in the House that the disaster had anything to do with whether there were or were not seats.

Mr. Hattersley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that correction. He has enabled me to move on to my next point and to tell the House that, as I have already spoken for almost a quarter of an hour—thanks to interventions—I must now make progress so that other hon. Members can speak in this short debate.
I said a moment ago, and I repeat, that if progress is to be made towards all-seater stadiums—as we have now come to call them, although it is a new term that is not usually applied to football—the Government will have to take the game with them rather than attempt to impose their will upon it.
The Taylor report, concentrating as it did on the way in which supporters have been treated over the years, could be the basis for real co-operation between supporters, the clubs and the Government. What concerns me and my hon. Friends is not so much the Government obtaining the acquiescence of directors, who will come up smiling whatever happens, but that the Government should work in a way that the supporters know is intended to help to preserve their interests, their clubs and their ability to work with the clubs for better football.
It is important that the opportunity that Taylor provides is not missed by arbitrary and authoritarian action. That requires the Government to draw a distinction between the majority of law-abiding supporters, who want to do no more than watch the game in comfort and peace, and the minority of hooligans who must be rooted out. That distinction is not drawn by the Home Secretary telling the football authorities that he knows how the game should he organised and that he intends to impose his will upon them.
I want to try to illustrate the difference between us by telling the Home Secretary about a question that was put to me on Sunday. I shall give my answer, and I hope that the Home Secretary will give his. Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who is wholly consistent in his belief in regulation and intervention, supported the Home Secretary in his insistence on compulsory seating. My hon. Friend no doubt welcomes the recent convert to central planning who is now sitting on the Treasury Bench. My hon. Friend said that his view on seating was shared by his two local clubs, Liverpool and Everton. I fear that my hon. Friend was wrong in both particulars and, indeed, the clubs have informed me of that today.
As I said, I want to pass on to the Home Secretary the question that I was asked by the chairman of Everton on Sunday afternoon to which I shall give my answer and I hope that the Home Secretary will give his. The chairman of Everton said that his ground was notably peaceful and that there had never been a suggestion that his spectators' safety was at risk. He said that his facilities were good, at least by the modest standards of British football. He went on to ask why, in my opinion, he should be required to reduce the number of standing places and to increase the number of seats at the ground when his supporters did not wish him to do so. I not only want the Home Secretary to provide his answer to that question; I hope—indeed, I

warn him—that he had better reply without his usual rudeness because the chairman of Everton is also the chairman of the Merseyside Conservative Association.
I now offer my answer to the chairman's question. I believe that the successful conversion of football grounds into 100 per cent. seating is, in the long run, right and irresistible. I believe that we should encourage a speeding up of that process, but I also believe that nothing but harm can come from arbitrary and authoritarian edicts that will simply offend supporters and destroy a vital part of the game.
I hope that the Home Secretary understands that many law-abiding football supporters feel that the whole game is being condemned out of hand. We should be on their side in the campaign to improve facilities, yet they feel that fashionable opinion is against them. I take my example from the Taylor report itself. In dealing with the occasional practice of running on to pitches, Lord Justice Taylor said that it was important to distinguish between "malicious intent" and "exuberance". It was Lord Justice Taylor, not I, who used the term "joie de vivre", a phrase that is rarely heard at Hillsborough football ground. One newspaper commentator asked me this morning how I expected the police to distinguish between "joie de vivre" and malicious pitch invasion. Fortunately, in paragraph 301 Lord Justice Taylor provides his own distinction, suggesting that in association football running on to the pitch is malicious invasion, whereas at rugby union football it is "joie de vivre".
I want to tell the Home Secretary what I wish he knew—that the issue of seats cannot be separated from the question of football finance, not least if grounds are to install the facilities that Lord Justice Taylor rightly says are civilising influences on supporters. Much nonsense is still talked about sources of possible revenue. The Home Secretary compounded that yesterday by talking about the "football industry" and "commercial concerns". Dozens of clubs run at a trading loss and are kept in business only by supporters' raffles and contributions from directors. They are not commercial concerns, at least in one definition of the term. For them, the sources of revenue that the Government so glibly describe are simply not available. Manchester United, Tottenham Hotspur, Arsenal, Liverpool and Everton can negotiate lucrative sponsorship deals but such deals are not available to third and fourth division clubs, many of whom have warned the Government during the past 24 hours that, unless an agreement is negotiated, what the Government intend to impose on them will force them into bankruptcy and closure.
Football clubs are often focal points for desirable community activity. During the past five years, we have all said that we want football clubs to do more for the community in which they exist. The hon. Members for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine), for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) and for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) must decide whether they are prepared to risk their clubs going bankrupt and ceasing to make a contribution to the life of their communities. It is no good the Government claiming that the vast sums of money now spent on transfer fees could or should be made available for other purposes.

Mr. Eric S. Heller: I am interested in what my right hon. Friend says. He said earlier that he was not against the idea of all-seater stadiums, to use the Government's terminology, but that such provision would


have to be made over a period of time and with Government assistance. Why do we not concentrate on that instead of arguing about whether the principle is right or wrong? If Mr. Carter believes that Everton should not have an all-seater stadium—that is not what the directors have told me—that is fair enough. That is his view, but he is as wrong in it as he is in supporting the Conservative party. I wish to make it clear that I believe that the idea of all-seater football grounds is important and right. It will take time. Let us concentrate on persuading the Government to provide the money for it.

Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend will recall that John Stuart Mill said that if the practice is wrong, the principle is no good. If that is good enough for John Stuart Mill, it should be good enough for my hon. Friend and me. I am trying to examine whether it is possible to apply the principle that the Government suggest in the timescale that they recommend. In my view, the amount of money available makes that difficult and doubtful. I repeat that the transfer market does not provide money. It is a complicated system of barter in which, most often, players, rather than money, change hands. Clubs cannot go to Wimpey, Laing or Bovis and say, "Build us an all-seater stadium and we shall pay the bill with a striker, a central defender and a reserve goalkeeper." The few clubs that make money out of transfers are mainly third and fourth division clubs which are struggling for survival. They find young players and sell them to the first division to clear their debts. A levy on them would simply make their survival even more unlikely.
For the wealthy clubs, the problem is different. It is best illustrated by a statement made by Arsenal yesterday afternoon. The club said that installing seats would involve considerable capital costs and the maximum gate would be severely reduced. As a result, the minimum entrance price would go up from £5 to £12. For the past five years, the argument about football has centred on the need once again to make it a family game—a husband and wife taking their two children to the game for an afternoon's entertainment. If unfunded, unsubsidised compulsory seating is enforced, it will cost a family of four almost £50 to go to a football match.

Mr. John Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: No. I must go on because I have taken so much time.
It is worth noting that if the proposed price increases were made, precious few ambulance workers could take their families to football this coming Saturday. Football in Britain, like American football in the United States of America, would be beyond the means of a large part of the population.

Mr. Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: No; I must press on.
The Government must help with the cost of introducing 100 per cent. seating. I know that that proposal horrifies the Home Secretary. Will he tell us the principle on which the Government justify subsidising the Royal Opera house in Covent Garden, which amounts to £50 per seat per performance, while rejecting assistance for football?

Knowing the Home Secretary's propensity for misrepresentation, I inform him that I am strongly in favour of assistance to the arts.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when the Conservative party conference is held at Blackpool, the cost of policing to prevent hooliganism or terrorism is paid by Lancashire county council? It costs £2·7 million for the week. The council has protested strongly that the Government should pay. Why does the Conservative party not pay for the policing of its conference in the same way as it demands that football should do?

Mr. Hattersley: We can take it a stage further. Last week the Derbyshire constabulary told Derby County that it could not provide policing for a match last Wednesday evening. Derby was told that, if it insisted on playing that night, the police would allow the game to go ahead only if it provided the entire cost of policing inside and outside the ground.

Mr. Lee: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: My information is that Derby County paid the entire cost of policing the match. I hope that the Lancashire constabulary will follow that excellent precedent and do exactly the same when the Conservative party conference is next held in Blackpool.
I am strongly in favour of assistance to the arts. I should like them to receive more assistance than at present. To believe in that principle requires in logic the acceptance that other activities also deserve Government aid. During the lifetime of the Government, the tax burden on football has increased. Pools profits are now taxed, not at 40 per cent. but at 42·5 per cent. Were we to return to the 1979 level of taxation, pools promoters' net income would increase by £18 million. Yesterday, they told me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) that if the old rate were renewed, every penny that they received would be passed on to the game. Tonight we call on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept that offer.
If the Government are serious in their wish to see football grounds improved, we call upon them to increase tax allowances for investment in stands and other facilities to make our football grounds more civilised. We ask the Home Secretary to approach the problem in a spirit of co-operation and possible compromise. I do not doubt that the best headlines could be obtained by denouncing football in the terms that he employed yesterday. I accept that, as the identity card scheme has been abandoned, a show of force is necessary to ensure that the retreat does not look like the rout that it is. However, there is still time for him to do his best for football. He must call all the parties together and decide on the basis of the Taylor report how real improvements can be made and financed. It is above all for that initiative that we shall vote tonight.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): Yesterday I made a statement about the Taylor report, and I had the opportunity then to express my sympathy for the relatives and friends of those who died and for those who suffered injury at Hillsborough. To voice that sympathy again is not out of place, but I am sure that the bereaved would agree with me


that the best service that we can now perform for the dead is to bend all our efforts towards preventing a similar tragedy in the future.
What happened at Hillsborough on 15 April last year must not finish as just another entry in the list of major tragedies which have afflicted football over the years. It must mark a new beginning for football in this country. The tragedy would never have occurred had the lessons from the past been learned and properly applied. This time they must be learned, and if they are, the loss of life will not have been entirely in vain.
Yesterday I had the chance to thank Lord Justice Taylor for his report. I would also like to thank his assessors, Mr. Brian Johnson, the chief constable of Lancashire, and Professor Leonard Maunder, who is professor of mechanical engineering at the university of Newcastle upon Tyne. Their special knowledge and experience were obviously invaluable.
I stated plainly yesterday the Government's response to the report, our determination to see a great change in the way in which the game is managed and a vast improvement in the way in which clubs treat their customers. I shall return to those matters shortly, but I have to say now that the Opposition's response to the challenge of Taylor has been nothing short of pathetic. [Interruption.] Opposition Members should listen carefully.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) does not, of course, think that there is any such thing as football hooliganism.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for returning to this matter. Yesterday, when he made his grotesque misrepresentation of my position, I had not had the chance to consult Hansard. I have now done so, however, and I said that there was no such thing as football hooliganism, but that there was criminality in society of which it was a part. That the Home Secretary misquoted me, of all people, on football hooliganism proves that he is in a blue funk because of the rout that Taylor has imposed upon him.

Mr. Waddington: I have a great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but he has misquoted himself, as he has not got it right even now. He wil have to live with the words he used. Let me remind the House of what they were:
I do not believe there is any such thing as football hooliganism. There is criminality in society and there is violence
Those were the right hon. Gentleman's words.

Mr. Denis Howell: Stop twisting them round.

Mr. Waddington: If the right hon. Gentleman does not know the meaning of the English language and if he cannot read the words recorded in Hansard, it is a poor thing.
The right hon. Member for Small Heath does not seem to think that there is much of a problem with British football as, on the same occasion, he voiced his pride in the fact that the Labour party had not supported measures to curb drinking in grounds. Let me quote the exact words as they appear in Hansard and we shall see whether he likes them:
The Opposition have never supported the proposal that drinks should not be sold inside grounds"—[Official Report, 27 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 861, 916.]

He might like to compare that with what Lord Justice Taylor says in his report. As the right hon. Gentleman does not think there is anything wrong—

Mr. Brian Wilson: rose—

Mr. Waddington: First I shall deal with the right hon. Member for Small Heath, then his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and then the hon. Gentleman can intervene.
Because the right hon. Member for Small Heath does not think there is anything wrong, it is scarcely surprising that he has not been exactly fertile with new ideas as to how to put things right.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am again obliged to the Home Secretary for giving way. I must draw his attention to the fact that what we believe is that it makes much more sense to close the pubs outside grounds and to stop the sale of drink in supermarkets than to do so inside grounds. where it is impossible to get drink anyway. That is the nature of the problem. The Government have not dealt with alcoholism and drunkenness outside football grounds.

Mr. Waddington: That is all lovely blustering stuff, but the trouble is that it does not equate with a single word of Lord Justice Taylor's report.

Mr. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Waddington: I shall give way in a little while, but the hon. Gentleman should not get too involved with matters that are not his direct concern.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to intervene, but I had hoped that tonight's debate would be a serious one about the issues involved. I had also hoped that we would not necessarily become involved in great party conflict. Ninety-five people died—that is what I am thinking about—some of whom I knew. Can we not get back to a proper discussion as to the best way in which to deal with this matter rather than continuing this unfortunate conflict, which is doing us no good?

Mr. Waddington: It is of the utmost importance that we should examine with the utmost seriousness what the Opposition are now saying about Lord Justice Taylor's report.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, unlike his right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, knows that there is a lot wrong with the football industry. Yesterday, despite that knowledge, he announced that he did not agree with the central proposals in Lord Justice Taylor's report. He said that he disagreed with the first proposal of that report and today he has reinforced that rejection. He has entirely ignored what was said in that report about the attitude of FIFA and the fact that Lord Justice Taylor points out that the football authorities have always said that they would think it right to follow resolutions carried by FIFA.
The right hon. Gentleman has also ignored paragraph 61 of the report, which states:
There is no panacea which will achieve total safety arid cure all problems of behaviour and crowd control. But I am satisfied that seating does more to achieve those objectives than any other single measure.
He has also entirely ignored Lord Justice Taylor's conclusions and the recommendation in paragraph 90:


I therefore conclude and recommend that designated grounds under the 1975 Act should be required in due course to be converted to all-seating. I do so for the compelling reasons of safety and control already set out; also, so far as association football is concerned, because the present trend at home and abroad and the rules of the world and European football authorities make the move to all-seating irresistible.

Mr. Hattersley: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I might have an interesting semantic argument about this. I described the move to all-seater stadiums as inevitable, as distinct from irresistible. I urged the Government to do all it could to speed up that process, but by the agreement of the clubs. [Interruption.] That is exactly what I said a few moments ago. It is not my fault if the Home Secretary wrote his speech before he heard mine. Given that the Home Secretary has dealt extensively with one of the Taylor proposals, will he answer my question as to whether the Government propose to implement the others? We have said that we would, but will the Government give the lead?

Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Gentleman should not be so swift to intervene without recalling the allegation I made against him and the recommendation made by Lord Justice Taylor. That recommendation is not that a move to all-seater stadiums should be brought about by agreement; the recommendation is that that move should be required. That is what the right hon. Gentleman will not face up to. Yesterday, he was cross because I was short in my reply to him. He was cross because I pointed to the absurdity and triviality of the point that he took up yesterday and again today—that somehow or other, people who stood up in a seated area would be guilty of a criminal offence.

Mr. Hattersley: No, no.

Mr. Waddington: Yesterday he squirmed; now he shouts, "No, no." I refer the right hon. Gentleman to what he said yesterday, as he obviously has a short memory. He said:
If he persists"—
he was referring to me—
in making football grounds all-seater stadiums by law, is it his intention to make it illegal for a spectator to stand…?"—[Official Report, 29 January 1990; Vol. 166, c. 23.]
Well, really—if the nonsensical response to Lord Justice Taylor's proposal is not that criminal offences should be imposed on spectators, but that clubs should be subject to safety certificates which do not allow them to offer standing accommodation, one despairs.
If the right hon. Gentleman is the authentic voice of the Labour party, the world can see it as a party for which no problem is so grave that it cannot be dodged, no challenge so demanding that it cannot be shirked, no obligation so solemn that it cannot be ducked. To it, a membership scheme is poison, better stadiums a curse, vociferous inactivity sublime. The nation has heard Labour's response to the challenge of Hillsborough.
Having rejected the fundamental proposal in the report, the Opposition have the sheer effrontery to table a motion welcoming the report. Having been completely supine and negative during the past years—when we have been struggling with the problem of football hooliganism—the Opposition have the brazenness to criticise us for trying to do something.

Mr. Dick Douglas: In view of the trivia which we are hearing from the Front Bench spokesmen, can I be assured that none of this will apply to Scotland, and that we will get a separate statement? I have some misgivings about the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland because he is not present, but I want an assurance that none of these trivia will apply to Scotland. Although football is a national—and, I accept, a United Kingdom—game, none of this absolute irrelevance should be allowed to continue and if it does so will you, Mr. Speaker, show the Home Secretary the red card?

Mr. Waddington: I am proud of the fact that, when others were not prepared to do a thing, we rose to the challenge. Our actions have not been in vain: part I of the Football Spectators Act 1989, as the House knows, will play a vital part in implementing the Taylor recommendations.

Mr. David Alton: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) put it to the Home Secretary that there were other recommendations in the Taylor report. I wish to draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the matter of spiked fences and cages. He will recall that, in the immediate aftermath of Hillsborough, one of the most distressing factors was the photographs of fans cruelly crushed against the fences and cages. I know that there will be some disagreement in the House about what Lord Justice Taylor has said about this matter. Will the Home Secretary give an indication of the Government's intentions on this issue?

Mr. Waddington: I can give the hon. Gentleman more than just an indication. I said without any reservation that those recommendations were acceptable the Government; the hon. Gentleman will find that set out in the schedule which, as I said, was put in the Vote Office yesterday.
The Opposition motion asks us to introduce the changes in the criminal law recommended by Lord Justice Taylor. I have already said that we will consider the matter urgently, but before a final decision is made some consideration must be given to the possible difficulties of enforcement of the proposed new offences and the extent to which the mischief at which they would be aimed is covered by existing offences in, for instance, the Public Order Act 1986.
The Opposition ask us to initiate discussions with the football authorities and clubs about the cost and advisability of all-seat grounds. Advisability? Lord Justice Taylor makes the advisability crystal clear. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is merely issuing an invitation to clubs to argue the toss about whether they even now need take any action—an invitation to them either to shirk their responsibilities entirely or to hold out the begging bowl to the taxpayer, asking him to foot the bill for the decent facilities which the clubs should have provided years ago. This, I am sure that the House will agree, is not the time for talk—it is the time for action.

Mr. Wilson: I am genuinely anxious to try to clarify what has become a ludicrous debating point between the Front Bench spokesmen about all-seater stadiums. As I understand it, the Front Bench spokesmen from both sides seem to agree that we should move towards this. However, the idea that there is nothing in that worth talking to clubs


about is ludicrous. Will the Home Secretary contemplate the example of Ibrox stadium in Glasgow, which is recognised in the Taylor report as one of the finest grounds in the country. It was turned into such a ground largely because of a previous disaster and report. Inside that excellent stadium there is a well-defined area in which it is possible to stand. Would the Home Secretary accept that that is not to the detriment of the ground's safety, does not in any way diminish the excellence of the facilities and should be compatible with what emerges from the Taylor report?

Mr. Waddington: We simply cannot get away from the fact that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has rejected Taylor—there is no doubt about that. He said quite firmly that he disagreed with the central recommendation of the Taylor report that grounds should be required by law to be all seater. He has completely rejected that and hon. Members will be able to read what he said in Hansard tomorrow and can read today what he said in a question to me yesterday.
The Opposition also call for a reduction on pools betting duty. I am not suggesting that there may not be a case for more money to go into the game from the pools promoters. However, a change in the tax which would undoubtedly benefit the promoters would not necessarily benefit football. Instead, the Opposition should consider how much better use could be made of £18 million from television, £8 million from the pools promoters each year and £75 million promised by the Football Trust over the next 10 years. If we add up just those sources of income, we arrive at a grand total of £309 million available to the industry between now and 1999. That is twice as much as the highest estimate that I have seen of the cost of providing all-seated accommodation.
What I think is so wrong about the Opposition's attitude is that in the motion they send the football authorities precisely the wrong message. Instead of telling them that if they are going to invite people into their grounds it is their duty to see that their grounds are safe, they coo words of comfort. They say, "You need not bother too much about your responsibilities. If we get back, we will make the taxpayer cough up."

Mr. Harry Barnes: It cannot just be the distinction between seats and standing that determines the quality of a ground and its safety. A disaster took place in a stadium in Bradford. Safety depends on the quality and arrangement of the seats and the quality of the standing provisions. Can we get into a debate of the Taylor report in which we start to say what the quality and provisions of a ground should be?

Mr. Waddington: I can only repeat that Lord Justice Taylor says that all-seated accommodation is not just a bright idea which has come into his head, but FIFA has accepted that that is a desirable standard at which to aim. Therefore, it is not surprising that Lord Justice Taylor came to the conclusion that, as the football authorities said that they thought it right to observe the resolutions passed by FIFA, the authorities have accepted that they should move towards all-seater stadiums.

Mr. Ashton: rose—

Mr. Waddington: I shall give way for the last time.

Mr. Ashton: Is the Home Secretary aware that Wembley will soon be an all-seater stadium? If he talks to them he will find that what scares the authorities at Wembley is the thought of the IRA planting a bomb. If the bomb went off and started a panic, an all-seater stadium would take longer to evacuate. That could make it 10 times worse than if people were to run on to the pitch from the terraces.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have his chance to speak. We cannot get away from the fact that Lord Justice Taylor made a careful examination of the matter and came to a very different conclusion from that being voiced by the hon. Gentleman and had an entirely different view from that of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.
I shall not repeat today Lord Justice Taylor's indictment of the way in which the industry has been run. But, in fairness, I should say that, unlike the Opposition, many in the industry are now acknowledging that something must be done and that they must move to all-seat stadiums. We proposed that course immediately after Hillsborough, and we shall now press ahead.
It has been said that the move towards all-seated accommodation will force clubs to turn away spectators. I can only invite those who are worried about that to read the report. Many clubs already have more seated accommodation than the total number of spectators who usually attend their grounds, and a gradual reduction in standing capacity each year will not affect them for a time, if at all.
Some say that an end to the terraces will change the atmosphere of the game, but Lord Justice Taylor obviously thinks, and I agree, that it will be a change for the better. He points to experience in Scotland and says that he is satisfied that in England and Wales, as in Scotland and abroad, spectators will soon become accustomed to sitting, and like it.

Mr. Burt: The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) referred to Ibrox park. Paragraph 76 says:
At Ibrox Park…the seated areas are the most popular and tickets for them sell in preference to those for standing. Significantly, trouble from misbehaviour and physical injuries have been reduced since most of the crowd became seated. Such trouble and accidental injuries as still occur are primarily in the remaining standing areas. It is planned to convert them to seating in the near future.
Therefore, even Ibrox park will become an all-seal stadium. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that all the arguments advanced and accepted by Lord Justice Taylor are arguments for the proposition that all-seat stadiums will not only help to civilise the game and get rid of hooliganism, but will contribute more to safety than any other step that could be taken.

Mr. Barry Porter: rose—

Mr. Waddington: I shall give way for the last time. I must get on.

Mr. Porter: There is little disagreement as to whether all-seat stadiums will be desirable, irresistible, or whatever the other word was. The argument is about who will pay for them. I like football as much as anybody else, but if my right hon. and learned Friend is willing to listen to the Opposition's strictures on the spending of taxpayers' money, he should remember that there is rugby union and


the national stadium at Twickenham, there is rugby league all over the place and it is growing, and there might even be a tiddlywink stadium in Barnsley. I know not where it will end. Surely we should be concentrating on where the money will come from to do that which is desirable and fair.

Mr. Waddington: One cannot get away from the fact that, under our law, those who invite people on to their premises for reward must make their premises safe. It would be wrong for us to send out any sort of message from this place that the duty to make those premises safe rests on anyone other than the football clubs.
Let me deal now with Lord Justice Taylor's detailed recommendations about safety. The House knows that we accept them, and hon. Members have now had the opportunity to read the schedule that I have placed in the Vote Office. The licensing authority which will bring about all-seat stadiums in the way that I have described will be there to review and to keep under scrutiny the way in which local authorities carry out their safety functions.
There are a number of specific recommendations for the amendment of the green guide. That, as hon. Members will know, is a document published by the Home Office and the Scottish Office that owes its origins to the technical working party set up by Lord Wheatley in the course of preparing his report on crowd safety at sports grounds, which was published in 1972.
That document will now be revised in the light of the Taylor recommendations, but I should say, in justice to those who have been responsible for it over the years, that it has stood the test of time remarkably well, and it is difficult not to conclude that, if its guidance had been properly followed and applied at Hillsborough, and more recently at Middlesbrough, neither accident would have happened.
I should say a word about the role of the police in ensuring safety and effective crowd control. A key issue here is the liaison between the clubs and the police. There must be no opportunity for each to stand aside thinking that the other is in charge, and Lord Justice Taylor's recommendation that there should be a written statement of the respective functions of club and police for crowd safety and control is one that I can readily endorse.
I also welcome Lord Justice Taylor's recommendation that clubs should recruit and train sufficient fit, active and robust stewards, not least because the more capable the stewards, the less clubs will need to call for special police services, thus releasing police officers for duties outside the ground not necessarily connected with football—a benefit to the public generally.
For those reasons, and because it is right in principle, I support the report's recommendation that police authorities should ensure that charges made to clubs for policing inside grounds are realistic.
Lord Justice Taylor has much to say about hooliganism. Like many before him, he has concluded that no single measure will defeat football hooliganism, and even a package of measures will take time to have effect.
In recent years, the Government have been attacking the problem on many fronts. We have taken action against alcohol abuse in the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985 and we have introduced in section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 a new offence of disorderly

behaviour. The police have developed their tactics by making effective use of closed circuit television at grounds and by increasing the gathering and use of intelligence on hard-core hooligans. At the end of 1989, we established the national football intelligence unit, which has already made a good start in compiling and collating centrally intelligence on the most serious and persistent football hooligans.
As the House knows, part II of the Football Spectators Act 1989 gives the court powers to impose restriction orders on those convicted of football-related offences. Those subject to restriction orders will be prevented from travelling to key matches abroad. Its provisions will have a salutary effect on those hooligans whose disgraceful behaviour abroad has so blackened the reputation of football. We plan to implement part II as soon as practical arrangements can be made and the remaining parliamentary procedures have been completed.
I said yesterday that, following bilateral agreements with other countries, our courts will be able to impose restriction orders on offenders convicted abroad of corresponding football-related offences. We are giving priority to concluding an agreement with the Italian authorities. We aim to have those arrangements in place before the World cup. I expect the provisions of part II to have a useful deterrent effect on the behaviour of football spectators abroad.
I made it clear yesterday that the fact that we are not establishing a football membership authority does not mean that there will be any let-up in the fight against hooliganism. I have outlined the action that we are to take.
The vast majority of people who go to watch football matches, even in the appallingly squalid conditions that exist at some major grounds, are decent, well-behaved people, neither drunken louts nor hooligans. It is high time that more consideration was given to their interests, to their safety, to their enjoyment of their sport. If, by the measures proposed, we can enhance both their enjoyment and the reputation of the game, our efforts will have been well worth while.

Mr. Tom Pendry: All who love our national game owe a great deal to Lord Justice Taylor for making such a comprehensive, reasonable and thought-provoking report. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) acknowledged that in his constructive and reasonable speech. By contrast, the Home Secretary missed an important opportunity to set the agenda for a sensible debate on football's future. I hope to follow my right hon. Friend's example.
Lord Justice Taylor's report should be studied closely by those connected with football at every level, whether they be directors of illustrous clubs, administrators and officials, or supporters. We shall do Lord Justice Taylor a great disservice if we throw away the opportunity that his report presents for conducting a fundamental, far-reaching and frank reappraisal of all aspects of the game. If Taylor teaches us anything it is the folly of hasty or half-hearted measures. As Lord Justice Taylor points out,
Patchy and piecemeal approaches are themselves a great threat to safety.
A lengthy and honest debate on the issues that Taylor raises is urgently needed. The issues are not simply a matter of right or wrong, black or white, them and us.


They are complex and require detailed discussion. The report should be seen primarily as a catalyst for debate, not a tablet of stone.
In that debate, we must all recognise that we have something to learn from each other. It is foolish and churlish of the Government not to recognise the dangerous inadequacies of their proposal for a football identity card scheme that the report highlights. Rather than stubbornly closing their minds to arguments that they find unpalatable, the Government would do better to recognise the serious misgivings that Lord Justice Taylor expresses which led him to conclude that it would
Actually increase trouble outside grounds.
Equally, those responsible for running our national game must take the opportunity to examine frankly and honestly the state of British football as it enters the 1990s. The report contains many criticisms of football as experienced by genuine and regular supporters, and it is time for those criticisms to be addressed. The Government should scrap completely the Football Spectators Act 1989 and present instead a Green Paper as the basis for informed and detailed discussion of every aspect of the national game. It should deal with the problems of hooliganism, safety and standards. The Government should commit themselves to a genuine debate and not a blind, prejudiced debate, and then introduce legislation that would command the support of the House. That debate should involve right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, football authorities, and football supporters.
We must all acknowledge that there is no simple answer, no single transferable solution that can be applied to all football clubs, regardless of their status or position. We should applaud Taylor for recognising that and for his insight. We must accept that clubs need time and breathing space to assess the valuable work that went into the report and to consider the best way forward for football. I suggest that the proposals to phase out completely standing accommodation on football terraces for spectators who prefer to stand should be reconsidered.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: The Home Secretary stated that no positive contribution was made to the debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who is chairman of the all-party football group, spoke of the phasing in or phasing out of certain facilities. As an officer of the all-party rugby league group, I echo the concern that has been expressed about the imposition, virtually by law, of the all-seater stadium. It is not that we dispute the principle, but I have a list of all rugby league grounds showing that the average attendance figure is 3,500 to 4,000 per week. League grounds are now classified in the same way as football grounds. Would my hon. Friend accept a three-tier system—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Interventions must be brief.

Mr. Pendry: My hon. Friend has made his point. My point was that Lord Justice Taylor himself recognises the desirability of retaining
the traditional culture derived from the close contact of the terraces".
I remember the experience, as a young boy at St. James's park, Newcastle, of being passed down over the heads of the crowd. That unique atmosphere and comradely spirit still exist today.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook responded to yesterday's statement, he pointed out that a direct link between the abolition of standing areas and improved safety has yet to be established. The 1986 Popplewell inquiry into the Bradford disaster acknowledged the difficulty confronting spectators in evacuating seated accommodation even in the most favourable circumstances. Taylor states that the extension of seating to all parts of the ground would almost certainly lead to an increase in admission charges to those accustomed to watching their favourite game from the terraces.
Increased cost is not only a problem for the individual fan, because almost all those connected with the game who have considered the expense of converting stadiums to all-seater accommodation have concluded that in most cases the cost will be prohibitive and may lead to closure in some instances. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), who knows something about football, yesterday, on television, described that plan as totally non-viable.
The report estimates that the cost of conversion will be about £130 million and admits that money from the Pools Promoters Association and any tax concessions given by the Government would be woefully inadequate to meet that expense. The report concludes that, in the absence of Government recognition of football as a communal activity and not simply as a commercial venture,
the bulk of the finances for ground improvement must be raised by the clubs themselves.
Where is that money to come from? Now that the spurious arguments about the so-called apparent wealth of clubs on the basis of the total circulation of money in the transfer market have been exposed—though I do not think that that point has got through to the Home Secretary yet—vie are faced with the sober reality that, for all the good work that has gone into producing the report, many of its recommendations will remain pie in the sky unless the Government recognise the need for an urgent injection of cash into the game in the interests of the whole community.
The impression currently given by the Government that they want to abrogate their responsibility to the national game is both disheartening and regrettable. The House can contrast their approach with that of the Italian Government, who recently invested £260 million in improving the standard of grounds. That is a somewhat smaller figure than that which the Government take from the game in taxing football pools.
A fundamental rethink is required of football funding in this country. If I am critical of Taylor, it is only because he did not do justice to the range of possible options for funding. In particular, he seems not to appreciate the considerable benefits that might accrue from the creation of a football levy board accountable to a Minister. The Minister would have responsibility for appointing the board's chairman, and its representatives would be drawn from the Football League, Football Association, Professional Footballers Association and Football Trust, who have done so much in making a valuable contribution to solving many of the problems that confront the game.
When such a proposal was made in a private Member's Bill that I tabled in 1986, it received all-party support. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), and the hon. Members for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) all supported that Bill. Such a board would have powers to influence not only the injection of cash into the game but the possible acquisition of land for development by the football authorities. It would be the ideal vehicle for equipping football for the 21st century.
Although the current attitude of the Football Association and Football League is somewhat negative, as is reflected in the report, that has not always been the case. I have the minutes of a meeting in 1982 at which representatives of the Football Association and Football League all expressed their enthusiasm for the establishment of a football levy board. Given the obvious benefits that it would offer, it is not hard to imagine a revival of the football authorities' full support for it in the future. Such a board would be preferable to the current status quo maintained by certain vested interests.
The Taylor report may have come just in time. It highlights the problems faced by football, of outdated structures, grounds and complacent inertia at all levels, the problems that many of us who truly care about soccer have previously been attempting to highlight and combat.
Hopefully, the report will now stimulate the imagination and inspire the will to succeed. That will is present in football and, if it is given sincere and adequate support by the Government, it will ensure that the great majority of law-abiding supporters will once again enjoy the game they love in comfort and safety.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have before me the names of 17 right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. Less than an hour remains. I hope that we shall have very short speeches.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I shall take your guidance on brevity, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I welcome the fact that the idea of football identity cards has been dropped. It means that I can support the Government tonight, because the Home Secretary made a firm statement of action that must be taken. He was absolutely right, so, like a black sheep, I can come home, and the Whip will be pleased to hear that I shall vote for the Government.
A point that concerns me links with the whole question of the Taylor report. Football hooliganism is specific to football, but it is at the same time an outgrowth of a breakdown of law and order in society. We could see it in the permissiveness of the 1960s—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—often supported by Opposition Members; I should make that clear before they agree with me too cheerfully—when a decline in law and order was visible.
That concerns me now, because I see a trend in our schools which will create problems for us in the coming 10 or 20 years. There was a time in our schools—I am thinking in particular of the north, in the real soccer

country around Blackburn and in particular near Blackburn Rovers ground—when schoolmasters went out every Saturday morning with their pupils and played soccer against other teams. They learned to play to the whistle, as we called it; the referee was in charge and one appreciated good play on both sides. The good spirit of British soccer grew out of that.
I began to recognise at Highbury Grove—it is more than 16 years since I left there—a decline in school soccer. On the one hand, it was a question of the wife wanting the husband to help with the shopping on Saturday mornings, a growing factor about which one could do little. On the other hand, it happened because of the pressures to earn money elsewhere, plus the problem of travelling greater distances.
Also, we had from the colleges of education at that time people who were not trained to take part in team sports. People came to us with abilities in individual sports. It was said that team sports were competitive, and these schoolmasters said that was wrong. Indeed, those who argued that way had mental levitation rather than physical ability. I recall one such person saying to me that under no circumstances would he have anything to do with team sports. So the idea of playing with, and behaving like, a team—either as a crowd supporter or a member of a team—began to decline.
Since then, we have taken two actions which the Government may regret in the long run. First, we have placed teachers on a 1,265-hour contract covering a year. Instead of it being a profession, we have proletarianised it. Whereas people in other work had the rule book bought out, teachers were given the rule book. In other words, after 1,265 hours they go home. Does Saturday morning football count as part of that number of hours?
That means that in many schools in London—I cannot speak for Lancashire and other areas: other hon. Members can—school soccer has gone. Cricket has gone as well. There are no cricket matches on Saturday mornings at the vast majority of schools in London, and soccer is already disappearing. Towards the end of my time at Highbury Grove, it became clear that we would have to cut down from the 12 teams that we had on Saturday mornings to eight, four or even two.
I believe that a discussion document will be published this summer about bringing outsiders into schools to help on the sports side. That will not do. The masters inside schools must appreciate the game, and we shall have to re-examine a contract that is based on time. After all, people tend to say, "When a certain time arrives, that's it."
We shall also have to review the tightness of the school curriculum. At present, it is too tight. Unless we have a million schoolboys playing soccer every week, with their masters and parents taking a keen interest, so that the real culture of soccer is built up again, we shall simply be indulging in repressive legislation. I agree that such legislation is necessary, but the Department of the Environment, the Home Office and the Department of Education and Science must come together to revive school soccer and cricket. Otherwise, there will be a dearth of those team games in this country.

Mr. Michael Foot: Because many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, I shall be very brief indeed. I am glad to have the opportunity to


comment, particularly after the speech of the Home Secretary, which was damaging to his cause and that of the Government in dealing with the whole question. I plead with him to alter the way in which he approaches the matter and, on the next occasion, to come forward in a very different mood indeed.
One would have thought. in view of the defeat that the Government suffered on a major matter connected with this issue, that they would have been slightly chastened in approaching it. They got into some difficulty because they refused to listen to the House of Commons. Time and again, not only my right hon. and hon. Friends but some Conservative Members, such as the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), pleaded with the Government to listen to those who knew something about football, who had spent all their lives going to football matches, who understood what the situation was and were aware of some of the perils and dangers.
All that was brushed aside, and the responsibility must rest chiefly with the Minister for Sport. But others also have responsibility. The Prime Minister's edict was primarily responsible for the failure of Ministers to listen to the House of Commons. I plead with the Government, even at this late stage, to listen to us on this subject, because they will find that there is more wisdom on the Opposition Benches than on most of their own, although I accept that some Conservative Members contribute to that wisdom.
In particular, I plead with the Home Secretary to listen to what we are saying. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) spelled out clearly and eloquently what the issues are. The Government must listen to our comments about the threat to the range of clubs if the whole programme is pushed forward without consideration of the financial implications.
If the whole programme is pushed through in that way, it is likely that some second and third division clubs will be driven out of existence. Indeed, we have been told how, even more seriously, some first division clubs could be threatened. The figures that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook quoted of the charges to football represent serious issues that must be properly considered.
What does the Home Secretary think will happen to criminality and hooliganism if the Government drive out of existence, in many towns throughout Britain, football teams that have had the allegiance of those who live in their areas for years and generations? What will happen to the youngsters in those places? What will happen if sport is injured in many of the nation's towns and cities?
The Government do not seem to have a glimmer of knowledge about that whole issue. Indeed, the Home Secretary said, in effect, when asked that question, "It has nothing to do with me. If people have a business venture, they are responsible for the conditions in which they ask people to come and participate." I think I see the Home Secretary nodding in assent as I say that. He seems to think that that is the whole story, when it is not.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman proceeds on his present basis, he will be rejecting the advice—as well as that of the few among his Back Benchers who know something about this matter—of the whole range of Opposition Members who know what they are talking about and who are pleading with him to use this

opportunity for something other than a madcap scheme thought up by the Prime Minister as one might think something up to catch the headlines.

Mr. Waddington: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is not a madcap scheme thought up by the Prime Minister. It is the proposal in Lord Justice Taylor's report.

Mr. Foot: I am talking about the madcap scheme that was thought up by the Prime Minister and has been rejected by Lord Justice Taylor. If he had been listening to me, even the Home Secretary should have understood the point I was making. He would have understood had he not been so hasty to intervene. I was talking about the madcap scheme, imposed on the House by the Prime Minister, that has now been rejected.
The Home Secretary should now take the opportunity to try to ensure that the fresh proposals that have come from Lord Taylor—my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook put in their correct context the other proposals that have also come forward—and all the other proposals are considered in a different way.
Before that catastrophe, fiasco or however hon. Members wish to describe the Government's previous policy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and others had made them art offer time after time in the House. They had said, "We do not believe that any great political advantage is to be gained one way or the other; let us talk, and see whether we can find a common approach to the problem." That offer has been continually rejected. My right hon. Friend extended it again following the Taylor recommendations, and today the Home Secretary has rejected it again.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a great error. It is not as though the Government can boast of great triumphs in this regard; it is not as though they have displayed superior wisdom, and had all their proposals confirmed in an elaborate report conducted by a great judge. Months of the House's time have been wasted by a proposal that the Government should have known was ridiculous from the start.
Lord Justice Taylor has written of the unique position in which he has been placed: for almost the first time in history, a judge has been asked to pass judgment on what the House of Commons is supposed to have decided so solemnly. Before proceeding in such a manner and with such a tone, the Home Secretary should read Lord Justice Taylor's introduction again, and should understand that he had better listen to the views of others before proceeding along the same lines.
Can we not have the system of consultation that my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath has proposed? The Home Secretary talks as though "consultation" were a dirty word, but the football authorities will have to implement many of the Bill's provisions in any case. The Home Secretary talks as though this were a weak and shameful proposal. What he is afraid of is having to face the Prime Minister and telling her that he has agreed to some form of consultation. As we all know, the Prime Minister wants to run the House of Commons as Luton football club runs its matches: Luton does not allow the opposition in at all. That is an ideal system. Perhaps that is why the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) was so successful in selling his ridiculous scheme to the Prime Minister: perhaps she would like to apply here and now.
The Government will not get away with it. The next Government will have a chance to enact much wiser proposals, and it would be far better for the Home Secretary—even on the lowest ground, that of his own party's interest and his own reputation—to respond positively to the speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook this evening and a few weeks ago.

Mr. Michael Irvine: I was one of the Conservative Members who voted against the Football Spectators Bill, because I opposed the national membership scheme. I am glad that Lord Justice Taylor has rejected that scheme. I voted against it because I considered it to be fundamentally unworkable and, although inspired by the best of motives, not targeted in the right direction. I believe that it would have damaged the finances of football clubs by seriously deterring casual spectators, and that it would have caused safety risks over and above those that already exist.
My opposition to the Bill was not based on the view that everything in football's garden was lovely; I believe that action is needed, and that Lord Justice Taylor's admirable report points the way. He singles out the squalid conditions that prevail in so many football grounds today, and I consider the point fair and relevant. Not only do squalid conditions and poor facilities drive many spectators away, but—as Lord Justice Taylor points out —they tend to brutalise the behaviour of some spectators and degrade that of others. As we know, the vast majority of football spectators are law-abiding people who detest violence and hooliganism, but squalid football grounds tend to worsen the bad behaviour to which the minority already tend. Improving facilities is, in my view, an important way of improving crowd behaviour.
Let me put in a word for my constituency football club, Ipswich Town. As I am going to say some rather nice things about the club, I suppose that I should declare my interest: I am allowed two tickets for the directors' box each season. There is no political element in that; my predecessor, who sat on the Opposition Benches, received the same facility. I readily accept it, and obtain considerable pleasure from it.
Over the past 25 years, Ipswich Town has effectively rebuilt its stadium. What is more, in recent years it has built two large all-seater stands, and it now has one of the best grounds in the country. That is a tribute to the club's foresight, and not unconnected with its excellent reputation in regard to crowd behaviour.
As a long-standing football supporter, I have some reservations—perhaps largely emotional—about the proposal for all-seater stadiums: I have stood on the terraces in my time, and there is no doubt that there is a great atmosphere there. Sadly, that atmosphere is all too often seen by the public as hooligan and over-agressive, but in fact it frequently represents the spirit of comradeship, togetherness and the will for one's team to win, and that spirit is valuable.
I understand the fears of many football supporters who prefer to stand on the terraces and who wish to continue to do so, but we must recognise that safety comes first. If Hillsborough had had an all-seater stadium, I believe that

the disaster last spring would not have happened. Lord Justice Taylor's careful arguments in favour of such stadiums must be weighed against emotional considerations: I have certain feelings in my heart against all-seater stadiums but my head may lead me to support the Taylor recommendations.
In proceeding with Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations, the Government must do their utmost to take football with them. By "football" I mean not just the directors of clubs, not just those responsible for administration, but the ordinary football fans. One of the fundamental weaknesses of the membership scheme was that it alienated the law-abiding majority of football fans. Last year I received a vast number of letters about the scheme—more than on any other topic, apart from the National Health Service. I had hundreds of them, and every one was against the scheme. Ex-service men wrote to me saying that it was a gross interference with their liberties.
The scheme lost the support of the ordinary law-abiding football fan. It is most important that the Government regain the support of those people. I am sure that, by their praiseworthy immediate acceptance of Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations against the scheme, they have already gone a long way towards doing so. I hope that they will now work closely with the football authorities. I acknowledge that there must be an element of compulsion, but it is most important that the Government take the football authorities and the footballing public along with them.
Although I am against pouring vast sums of public money into a game that makes a great deal of money, I ask the Government to look at the recommendation—suggestion, perhaps—in paragraph 115 of the report, where Lord Justice Taylor makes the point that at present the payments that result in such profits on the transfer market are allowable revenue expenditure, but that investment in improvements to grounds is not. The Prime Minister made the point that too many clubs are spending too much money on the transfer market, at the expense of investment in the improvement of facilities at their grounds. Implementing the recommendations in the Taylor report will impose financial strains on the clubs. The next few years will be difficult. If the Government were to provide some tax concessions of the kind that I suggested, they would be welcome and would take undue financial pressure off the clubs. But I believe strongly that the movement towards spending money on grounds—improving facilities and increasing the number of seats—will in the long run do the game enormous good. It will attract back to the football grounds many of those fans who have lost touch with the game.
Therefore, I give a broad welcome to the thrust of the report. It will certainly have my support.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Now that Lord Justice Taylor's admirable and trenchant report has been universally accepted, the issue for this debate must be how it is properly to be implemented.
I have noticed with some interest the references to two developments in Scotland—one at Ibrox stadium, the home of Glasgow Rangers; the other at the ground of St. Johnstone in Perth. The implementation of the improvements in those two grounds bears careful


examination. The amount of money spent at Ibrox Park was substantial. Such expenditure was possible only because Rangers football club was associated with a financial company with many interests—indeed, worldwide interests. As a consequence, the finance necessary for improvement was readily available. In the case of St. Johnstone, the change was possible only because one of the major retailers in the United Kingdom identified an opportunity for retail development that involved taking over the existing, sub-standard ground, developing it for retail purposes, and paying for the construction of a new stadium on ground that had been donated. Those are special circumstances, and it is perhaps because of them that both those examples are available to illustrate what can be done. When we look at the problem of the 92 league clubs in England and Wales we may very well find that there are not 92 similar opportunities.
Lord Justice Taylor talks about sponsorship. What has to be remembered about sponsorship is that, these days, companies do not sponsor sport or sporting clubs out of any overwhelming philanthropic desire; they do so because they want a commercial return. If one were to take Lord Justice Taylor's report to a company that could not be assured of regular television coverage and were to say, "Here is the prospectus upon which you are expected to spend large amounts of your money", I suspect that one might get quite a lot of dusty answers.
Reference has been made to transfer fees. Of course, they are grotesque, but no one has attempted to calculate precisely how much money would be available in real terms if, say, 10 per cent. of the real value of transfer fees were to be allocated for ground improvement. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) referred effectively to the possibility of fiscal concessions for ground improvements. Why not? We are dealing with something that will make a contribution not to the commercial viability of the clubs, but to public safety. Is it not reasonable in such circumstances to accept that there is a special case for fiscal concessions for that purpose? No doubt the Football Trust and the Football Ground Improvements Trust will make their contribution. The problem is substantial. If capacity must be cut, the ability to generate revenue is necessarily affected, so clubs will be inhibited from taking out large loans because they cannot generate the revenue to service them.

Mr. Wilson: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that that point is even more true in respect of the proposal that standing attendances at grounds should be cut by 20 per cent. a year in the interim? If there is to be the stick of telling clubs that they must make their grounds all-seater, the need for the carrot of encouraging them to do that by this reduction disappears—if 20 per cent. of the revenue of many clubs is knocked off over the next five years, they will not have the money to invest in all-seater stadiums that they are told that they must invest.

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman's intervention reinforces the principle that I was endeavouring to explain. My only qualification is that safety must be paramount. If we have learnt anything from Hillsborough, it is surely that.
The conclusion that must be drawn from the Taylor report's financial implications is that there is grave doubt about how much money can be raised and whether sufficient resources can be generated to allow third and

fourth division clubs—even by the year 2000—to effect the necessary improvements. If that happens, inevitably some of the 92 clubs in the league will close. The structure of the game will be irreversibly changed and the structure that emerges will be directly related to the way in which money is raised for those improvements and to the amount raised.
I am conscious of the fact that other hon. Members wish to contribute, so I shall pass briefly over the issue of ticket touting and say simply that I am delighted that Lord Justice Taylor has seen fit to isolate that as a potential cause of disturbance and danger. I have twice attempted to introduce private Member's Bills to deal with ticket touting but, so far, they have not commended themselves to the Home Secretary or his predecessor. Ticket touting puts at risk the maintenance of safety and prevention of disorder at football matches. I hope that, for that limited reason at least, the Government will proceed to introduce legislation speedily.
The Taylor recommendations must be implemented. It would do less than justice to the report's comprehensive nature if we did not implement them. It would he an ill-fitting memorial to those who died at Hillsborough and would be little comfort for those who suffered severe injury there. I hope that the Government will feel compelled to proceed in tandem with the football authorities. To legislate from the touch line would be far too easy, and it would undoubtedly ensure that the incorrect result was achieved. A measure of co-operation between the Government and the football authorities to implement these recommendations will bring about the best solution. It is the Government's duty to bring that about and that is why they should enter into dialogue with the football authorities.

Mr. John Carlisle: The House will be aware that I and other members of the all-party football committee gave evidence to Lord Justice Taylor. At the end of that meeting, I had what was described as a "spat" with his Lordship about his attitude towards the football membership scheme. Regrettably, from my point of view and that of some of my hon. Friends, Lord Justice Taylor was against the scheme and came out against it in his admirable report. That is now water under the bridge, although I believe that the scheme will have to come back again.
It was regrettable that Lord Justice Taylor's conclusion on the membership scheme seemed to be based exclusively on the invitation to tender from the consultants to the Football League and not, as I should have hoped, on the reports in Hansard, and on the deliberations on the Floor of the House and in Committee. As the invitation to tender document had not even been agreed with the Department of the Environment, it was less than fortunate that he based much of his evidence about the membership scheme on that particular aspect.
There was an omission from the report which, unfortunately, did not comfort those who live near football grounds, and about which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was rightly concerned. It is a serious omission that the report dealt exclusively with football. Perhaps Lord Justice Taylor would say that his remit was to deal with Hillsborough and its effects, and with safety at grounds.
However, we must all understand that, although about 500,000 go to watch the game on a Saturday afternoon, there are many millions outside the grounds who find the spectacle of people going to games under heavy police escort, often with dogs and horses, and being marched like armies from railway and bus stations to the grounds unedifying, as do those who shop or visit relatives near football grounds. Apart from the obvious importance of safety, our duty is to ensure that scenes such as we all have seen over the past few years—some of us at first hand—around and inside grounds do not occur again.
The Opposition's negative attitude today and yesterday is disappointing. They have for ever taken the view that there is not too much wrong and that matters are improving. It is, of course, a fact that the incidence of hooliganism around football—I prefer to put it that way rather than to talk about "football hooliganism"—has declined, but the reason for that, as even the Opposition would admit, is heavier policing and the decisions being made by various chief constables. That has led to the number of arrests decreasing and a decreasing incidence of trouble.
We applaud that, but we must ask ourselves whether the massive cost of £30 million a year to the tax and rate payers is worth while for what is only a game. It may be the national game, but it is supported by a minority of people. Other sports, such as fishing, attract far wider interest than football does.
The Opposition's continual line seems to be that football is some sort of charity and, as such, taxpayers' money must be thrown at it. However, I am not unsympathetic to some of the points of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and others, which were taken up by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
There may be means by which certain amounts—I emphasise that they must be small—could be directed towards the improvement of grounds, in the same way that money comes from the spot-the-ball competition at present. However, it is not the duty of the House to see a problem and to pour vast sums into it. The Opposition, who are in the pockets of the Football League and the Football Association, seem always to take that attitude. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I do not mean that they are in their pockets financially, but that for the Opposition, the Football League and the Football Association can do almost no wrong, although the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), who is regrettably not in the Chamber, has other ideas, as can be seen from the early-day motion that he tabled today.
The implication of the Taylor report, which football must face, is that, if all-seater stadiums are to come about, whether by legislation or otherwise, they will cost the clubs an enormous amount—and I admit that. Clubs must ask themselves, as the House must, whether it is worth while at the majority of grounds. That is true of the old Victorian grounds—which are badly sited for modern conditions, which often have terrible access, which are a terrible nuisance to those around and which have aged and crumbling facilities—and even more true of those in the lower divisions. Will it be worth their while to continue in existence on the basis of having all-seater stadiums? Many of them must be asking tonight, as they did when the report was published, whether their very existence is now

threatened, as my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) suggested, and has been endorsed by hon. Members.
There is an answer, which Lord Justice Taylor and others before him have put forward and of which I would like to remind the House. It is in paragraph 126, on page 21 of the report, where Lord Justice Taylor talks about ground sharing. The House, and football clubs must understand that this, regrettably for the sentimentalists—there are several in the House, especially among the Opposition—is the only way that many clubs can survive and retain their identity.
It is somewhat ironic that, about a week ago, Mr. Jimmy Hill of the Fulham football club came to the all-party committee and told us in heavily sentimental tones that he wished to see Fulham football club survive, and that it had the support of the local council. Yet, within a matter of days, if not hours, it was announced that the sale was to go ahead and Craven Cottage was to close. That is obviously a cause for great regret, but it is a sign of realism. There is no way that such clubs can afford to put in the necessary number of seats, and it would be impractical for them to do so in current conditions. Ground sharing is inevitable.
It is interesting to see from Lord Justice Taylor's report that Mr. Peter Robinson of the Luton football club, who is well known to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), said that, if his club and Everton were offered a new super-stadium on Merseyside, although the fans would not like it, he for one would be happy to go to that stadium. I suggest to the House that that must be the way; that in cities such as Sheffield, Nottingham, Bristol—and, indeed, London—if clubs are to survive and retain their identity, they will have to consider a communal facility for one, two or possibly three clubs. [Interruption.]
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) asks where Luton will go. We have Watford down the road and Northampton just north of us. We have to encourage the football clubs to take decisions that will certainly be sentimentally unpalatable to them but, realistically, are the only way in which they can survive.

Mr. Ashton: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman; he knows the time structure.
The other factor that must be remembered has been mooted on the Floor of the House before. It is that we must look towards super-stadiums. For this, we must have the co-operation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and those Labour, Conservative and Liberal councillors throughout the country who consistently reject the idea of super-stadiums, and, indeed, of out-of-town stadiums.

Mr. Ashton: Not true.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Member says, "Not true," but I have an instance in my own constituency. There is a 365-acre old chalk pit and a new super-stadium was proposed, but every man and woman on the county council rejected it and every villager was up in arms about it on the basis that they did not want it in their back yard.

Mr. Ashton: The world student games are to come to Sheffield in 1991. A municipal stadium has been built for 40,000 people, all sitting down, and the clubs have been asked if they would consider sharing and playing there.


The rent they are asking is £2 million a year, because the new stadium has cost £20 million or thereabouts to build, and the public auditor, whom they have to satisfy, says that a fair rent as a return on capital is £2 million a year. The clubs says they cannot afford it. These are the finances that the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

Mr. Carlisle: I know, and I have spoken to the hon. Gentleman about that instance, but he is faced with the alternative of clubs going out of business, there being only one club in Sheffield and only one in Bristol. He must face the fact that those clubs will go out it they are forced by law to build the suggested number of seats. Also, of course, the clubs have to improve their facilities; they probably have to go for artificial surfaces, which I know are anathema to many people. If they are to become community facilities which I believe they will become, we shall see far fewer grounds—the same number of clubs, I hope, but far fewer grounds. That is the part of Lord Justice Taylor's report which I believe will have to be implemented if the 92 clubs in the Football League are to survive under the conditions he sets.
This is a last chance for football. That has been said in the House so many times, but everyone is screaming again today. Everyone is trying to assist, but we have to be realistic, and so has football. If it is realistic, it has a future. If it is governed by sentiment as it has been in the past, it has no future and it does not deserve one.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: It is ironic and sad that it took the deaths of 95 football supporters to bring it home to the Government and to society in general that something had to be done about the game of football.
One weakness of the structure of the football industry—we must remember that, besides being a sport, football is an industry—is that those who go week after week to watch local teams play have had little say in how the game should be organised. Those are the people who pay their money at the turnstiles every week. As a football supporter who has been following one of the best teams in the country for more than 50 years, I agree wholeheartedly that the conditions in many stadiums have led to the problem in many football grounds.
It may not be the only problem, but the treatment of football spectators by clubs is an important element. In many football clubs, a spectator has to be a bully if he wants to go to the toilet: the facilities are so inadequate that people have to push and shove their way in. The same applies to catering arrangements. To get a cup of tea, a meat pie or whatever they fancy at half-time, spectators have to fight their way to the front of the queue. When people are treated in that way, they respond accordingly. That atmosphere must be removed from football if we are to solve the problem.
I do not want football to be sanitised to the extent that all the things that attract the working class to the game are removed. I accept that changes have to take place but I want a greater input by those who go to football matches season after season to support their clubs. Many supporters' clubs are like sweetheart organisations and do not adopt a positive attitude to the well-being of the people they allegedly represent. I am not saying that there are not good supporters' clubs; there are, but many are so

involved in their adoration of the management of the clubs that they do not act in the interests of the spectators who attend football matches.
Football has been our national game. Many stadiums were built in the last 100 years. Many are in the wrong places. In Liverpool there are two football grounds, one on either side of a park. If they were being built today, they would not be in the same positions.
The report suggests that there has been far too much neglect by Government and by the football industry. We had had the Bradford disaster and many others, so there was no question of being taken by surprise. Many warnings have been flashed out to the industry and the Government, but no positive steps have been taken to remedy the problems.
I repeat that the football industry must realise that those who pay money to watch football matches have a right to have their voices heard and their views considered more positively than in the past. That will bring about a change in football supporters' behaviour. At the moment, most of the trouble takes place outside grounds and it is for their activities outside grounds that football supporters get a bad name. We must find a solution to that problem.
I attended that match at Hillsborough, and lost a relative there. The events that day, in all their drama, showed beyond a doubt that there is something terribly wrong with what is happening in football. 1 hope that the Taylor report will show us the way forward and that the acceptable changes will be implemented as soon as possible to the benefit of the game.

Mr. Denis Howell: Any reply to a debate such as this must start with an expression to Lord Justice Taylor of our great appreciation for the excellent job that he has done on behalf of football.
I am sorry that the Home Secretary is not yet here, because there is only one word to describe his speech. It was a diatribe unworthy of any senior Minister in this or any other Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman completely misrepresented the report for purely party political ends and to camouflage the disaster that the Government face. That is extremely regrettable.
The problems of football are the problems of society. That is why Lord Justice Taylor was right to call football to account for its stewardship. It is the duty of the Football Association and Football League to provide a leadership that accepts its responsibilities not only for the state of the game but for the role of football in society. All too often., the bodies are seen as warring factions instead of administrators united in a common purpose. Even within the league, we have the spectacle of a conflict between big clubs and small clubs.
All that must change. We must develop a cohesive strategy, such as that called for by hon. Members on both sides of the House, uniting the national leadership of the Football Association and the Football League, involving all the clubs in the county associations and embracing supporters' associations and players' associations, all of which represent the game and represent public opinion.

Miss Kate Hoey: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to say something about the way in which the Professional Footballers Association has tried to do something about the behaviour of players? It was


therefore unfortunate that, because the report was deemed to be purely about safety, that association did not give evidence.

Mr. Howell: Yes, and I am glad to say that Lord Justice Taylor makes the point that what happens on the field is often reflected in what goes on off the field. I pay tribute to Mr. Gordon Taylor, and Mr. Garth Crooks and to the officers of the Professional Footballers Association for their contribution to cleaning up the game, and I wish them further success.
I was on the subject of the responsibilities of the governing bodies. In the United States, those responsibilities are exercised through the establishment of commissioners for each sport. They are independent of sectional interest. Football must move in the same direction—and move fast. I hope that it will do so of its own accord; otherwise, such a solution may have to be imposed upon it. Football must seek the help of all those people of good will in responding to the Taylor report.
That approach is in contrast to the Government's response to the report, which I can only describe as excessively partisan. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, the Government have scorned the offer of a collective approach that I have made across the Dispatch Box at least four times. Both yesterday and today, the Home Secretary misrepresented Opposition Members, and especially myself, in the most disgraceful manner. We have had an exchange about it—

Mr. Waddington: I was quoting the right hon. Gentleman, not misrepresenting him.

Mr. Howell: No, the Home Secretary was not quoting me. Is the Home Secretary saying that football hooliganism is not a criminal matter, because that is the only logic of the position that he adopted? My approach was much more effective and stern than anything that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, and it is backed up by what Lord Justice Taylor and Mr. Justice Popplewell have said.
After describing how such people cause havoc in society, paragraph 47 of the Taylor report states:
They plan their violence as a recreation in itself to which the football is secondary".
That is exactly what I have been saying. It is what both Taylor and Popplewell have said. It is what everybody has said, except the Home Secretary.
I hope that, in future, the Government will proceed along the path of consultation and conciliation and not pursue the confrontation that we have seen so far. Their confrontational approach, which we could describe as "ministerial hooliganism", dominated the Committee stage of the Football Spectators Act 1989. Those of us who served on the Committee know that in the 120 hours that we spent on that legislation, the Minister for Sport did not accept a single amendment from any hon. Member, be it tabled by one of his hon. Friends or an Opposition Member. Those 120 hours were an exercise in pure political prejudice, as the Government attempted to rush through the House a measure dominated by the thoughts of the Prime Minister.
Lord Justice Taylor's report has demolished that arrogance. That is why we have seen this disgraceful

performance from the Home Secretary and his colleagues, who are trying to bluster their way through and to camouflage the disaster that they have suffered. As I have said, the Minister for Sport rejected every amendment that was tabled in our 120 hours in Committee and has now had his attitude totally repudiated by Taylor. The only honourable thing for the Minister to do at the end of the debate is to resign his position at once.
We have had another exchange about all-seat stadiums and about what the Home Secretary thought we were saying about people who insisted on standing in seated areas. I remind the Home Secretary that I drew attention to that problem both in Committee and in the House. Indeed, I have given my eye-witness account of the 10,000 Leeds United supporters who were provided with seated areas, but who refused to sit down. What does the Home Secretary say about that? When the right hon. and learned Gentleman was asked yesterday what he would do about that, he said:
when people go into a seater stand, it will be up to them to decide whether they stand or sit"—[Official Report, 29 January 1990; Vol. 166, c. 36.]
That is the Waddington recipe for future disaster. The Home Secretary is saying that people can stand in seated areas, even though we know that it will cause mayhem and friction among the fans behind them.
I should like some answers from the Government. Do they intend to make standing in seated areas a criminal offence, and, if not, how do they intend to deal with the phenomenon that has afflicted Coventry City and Queen's Park Rangers and which some of us have witnessed ourselves? We want an answer to the question, but it is clear that we shall not get one.
I refer now to the problems surrounding the World cup, which is to be held in June. Again, the Government have not referred to that. All that the Home Secretary said yesterday was that the problems of English hooliganism that may emerge in Italy in June will be the responsibility of the Italian Government. The Government expect a foreign Government—[HoN. MEMBERS: "He did not say that."] The Home Secretary did say that. He outlined the message to the Italian Government, which was that they could do the dirty work.
The Minister for Sport has been completely unable to take preventive action about the World cup in June, because he has no names of people to disbar. The number of people against whom he could obtain orders to prevent them from attending could not be more minuscule. He has the names of only 15 people who were on the boat, which was in such a state of riot that the skipper had to return to the British port and call for the help of Kent police.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the right hon. Member fitted with a swivel head? He constantly addresses the Back-Bench Members behind him and not the Chair.

Mr. Speaker: It is not unusual for hon. Members on both sides of the House to turn both to the right and to the left. However, it would be much easier for the House to hear the right hon. Member if he directed his remarks in front of him so that they are picked up by the microphones.

Mr. Howell: I am obliged for that advice. You will understand my difficulty, Mr. Speaker. Naturally, I address those parts of the House where intelligence is to be found.
I wish to make it perfectly clear that we believe in all-seater stadiums. I believe in them. I said so yesterday, when I said that they are inevitable and desirable.
Cost concerns us all. First, I must declare an interest. I am a director of Wembley stadium. We have gone all-seater. We have removed 20,000 standing places and replaced them with 10,000 seats. I am putting into practice the advice of the Taylor report. Wembley has spent £25 million on that exercise of refurbishment and creating seated areas. That is a colossal amount but the cost of a seat at Wembley is the same as the cost of a seat in a fourth division club. That is the point at which we must start when we consider the financial problems.
I can tell the House the cost for each division of the football league to go all-seater. For the first division, it is £8·4 million, or £420,000 per club. For the second division, it is £9·5 million, or £400,000 per club. For the third division, it is £6·8 million, or £283,000 per club. For the fourth division, it is £4·8 million, or £200,000 per club.
Lord Justice Taylor rightly said that clubs cannot simply provide seats. They will have to put a roof over them, especially for a bad winter. That will cost at least £1 million per club. When a club puts a roof on a seated terrace, it must provide creature comforts such as toilets, a refreshment area and supporters' club rooms. That costs £250,000 per club. The minimum cost of implementing Taylor, which I want to happen, in every fourth division club will be at least £1·5 million.
The Home Secretary charges the Opposition that we have no policies. Not only do we have a policy: we have a splendid record in government.

Mr. David Wilshire: The Opposition have two policies.

Mr. Howell: If the hon. Gentleman will listen, he will learn that not only do we have a good policy, we have a magnificent record in government. In 1966, when we wished to host the World cup, we took it as a duty to provide at least 50 per cent. and in some cases 90 per cent. of the cost of all the capital work needed on grounds where it was to be played.
In 1970, we encouraged Scotland to stage the Commonwealth games and, in contrast to the Government, we provided substantial funds so that Scotland and Edinburgh could acquit themselves with credit.

Mr. Robert Hayward: rose—

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman must listen to the catalogue of events; then I shall give way.
In 1975, we not only passed the Safety of Sports Grounds Act, but negotiated with the football pools authorities to create the Football Trust. With the agreement of the then Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), we agreed that no taxation would be imposed on the spot-the-ball competition. In return for that agreement, 8 per cent. of the take went to the Football Trust for the ground improvements on which we were insisting. This year, my right hon. Friend the Member for
Sparkbrook and I negotiated a new deal with the pools promoters which we

offered to the Government. I hope that they will accept it, as it will produce £18 million a year for the football improvements—£180 million in the 10 years in question.

Mr. Hayward: If I heard the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he spoke about when "we"—the Labour Government—took the decision to host the 1966 World cup. What year was the decision taken to host the World cup in this country?

Mr. Howell: When I came to office, I was told by Denis Follows that he had approached the previous Conservative Government. He had been told that they would give every help and that they would provide motor cycle policemen to go round the country. I had to go to the Treasury to get some money myself. If hon. Members want to know the story, my autobiography comes out shortly and it is all there. It costs £14·95 and it is well worth a read. I am sorry to say that one of the people who comes out best is the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. I hope that he will reform from his practice of misrepresenting me in view of the justice I do to him in my book.
The levy of 42·5 per cent. on the pools is a disgrace. It is disgraceful that men and women who fill out their football pools are called upon to pay 42·5 per cent. in tax, when the tax on bingo, horse racing and everything else is 8 per cent. only. I hope that the Government will consider that problem.
It is important to consider the effects that the Taylor report will have on rugby union, rugby league and on cricket. All those sports will be required to provide all-seater grounds; it is a major problem for all sports, not just football. I hope that the Government will consider it.
I endorse what the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) said about planning and local authorities. Taylor rightly calls upon local authorities to understand the need to improve and replace stadiums and to be sympathetic to planning applications. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State for the Environment is present and I hope that he will recognise that, time and time again, local authorities turn down such applications. If they continue to do so, they will sabotage the Taylor report—none of us wants to see it sabotaged on those grounds. I would be grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy in that regard.
We must consult the supporters' clubs more often. They have a wealth of wisdom and knowledge and I am sorry that much of the football industry does not take it on board. I believe that every football club should have a genuine, independent, but sympathetic and realistic supporters' club, which should work in co—operation with its club. The supporters' clubs should be represented on the new Football Licensing Authority, which we have not discussed, and the sport itself should also be represented now that the Football Membership Authority has gone.
It is important that friction does not develop in the future, because the licensing authority—acting with great powers—has no representative from football or football supporters. I hope, in a constructive spirit, that when he makes his appointments, the Minister will consider that matter seriously.
Yesterday, the Home Secretary's response to the Taylor proposal about the need to deal with new laws to prevent pitch invasions, racial and obscene chanting and the throwing of missiles was disappointing—as was his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for


Sparkbrook's call for the need to provide more attendance centres. However, I was heartened that the Home Secretary said that he would look at the matter again urgently rather than merely rely on the Public Order Act 1986. I welcome that, and hope that he will do so. Lord Justice Taylor must have looked at the Public Order Act and concluded that it was inadequate. We know that it is, because the number of prosecutions for racial chanting, obscene calls or such matters is minuscule.
I endorse Lord Justice Taylor's report. I cannot do any better than to quote his fine summing up under his chapter headed, "A better future for football":
I hope in these two chapters I have made it clear that the years of patching up grounds, of having periodic disasters and narrowly avoiding many others by muddling through on a wing and a prayer must he over. A totally new approach across the whole field of football requires higher standards both in bricks and mortar and in human relationships.
Those words have the full support of Her Majesty's Opposition. We trust that the Government will provide the resources which will turn fine words into reality.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): Those of us who have been here throughout the debate will have heard with interest the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), for two reasons. First, he addressed three comments to me. He said that I was a supporter of Millwall, that it was in my constituency, and that I wanted a fixture list for next season. I am a supporter not of Millwall, but of Charlton. Neither club is in my constituency. I do not need a fixture list for next season; we are hardly through this season.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook should address at the Dispatch Box now an issue which is fundamentally important. Those who were present for his speech will have noticed that during his early remarks he said that supporters who wanted to stand should be allowed to do so. That led to an intervention by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), who could not accept that premise. He clearly and cogently put the argument for all—seater stadiums which is at the centre of Lord Justice Taylor's report. Later on, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook's position was echoed by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who also argued against Lord Justice Taylor and said that those supporters who wanted to stand should be allowed to do so.
It is absolutely essential to the House, and as a message to people outside the House, for the Opposition to make their position absolutely clear. Do they support all-seater stadiums along the lines proposed by Lord Justice Taylor or do they not? I shall happily give way to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. [HoN. MEMBERs:"Answer."] It does not surprise me that the right hon. Gentleman does not rise to his feet because Hansard and coverage of this debate will show clearly that the Opposition have rejected the main tenet of Lord Justice Taylor's report. They went further than that on a whole range of different issues and challenged his arguments on other matters. They even questioned whether the new penalties and criminal offences which Lord Justice Taylor has urged the Government to consider carefully and enact should be so enacted. It is disgraceful that the right hon. Member for

Sparkbrook has not backed Lord Justice Taylor's report or all-seater stadiums along the lines outlined in that report.
The message from my hon. Friends is far clearer. Urgent solutions must and can be found to the problems that beset football. An ailing game must be treated and brought from the inward-looking boardrooms of Victorian England into the 1990s. That will not be done overnight, nor will this report alone provide the cure. We need a complete change in attitude, a new realism and, above all, courage from those who run the game and those who support it.
I recognise, as my hon. Friends have made clear, that football can creak and lumber on as it has been doing for years, bedevilled by trouble and shabby venues. Of course, change can remain a dirty word at most football clubs. Yesterday, in the intervention of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr Ashton), we saw symptons of such an attitude when he was unwilling to accept that football is an industry, a part of the leisure industry, which has to compete for spectators.
There is simply no excuse for the raw deal that most supporters get from their clubs nowadays. Clubs must move closer to their supporters. I agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) that the views of supporters need to be taken fully into account by clubs.
But the reality is that too often in football local shopkeepers are too terrified to open and supporters have to be herded into grounds and protected every match day for their own safety by 5,000 or more police. The police are on duty to contain the problem, not to cure it. What other industry has the nerve to presume to ask the police to marshal its paying customers in and out of its premises? The police would be far better deployed in the local community and towns upholding law and order.
The football authorities should be leading the way. Like every form of activity for the paying spectator, be it cinemas, tennis or fitness clubs, football clubs must pay for the safety improvements themselves.
If every ground converted to all-seater and all those seats were covered, the Football Trust estimates that the cost would be £130 million. The calculation made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was even less than that. Many clubs, particularly in the lower divisions, have attendances well below capacity and many currently uncovered standing areas will no doubt simply not be used, thus substantially lowering the cost.
Meanwhile, the Football Trust has offered £75 million towards ground improvements, and even if only half the income that the Football Association and the Football League derive from television—currently about £18 million a year—was spent on ground safety over the next 10 years, the costs would be covered in full. That is without considering the sponsorship and commercial arrangements, gate money and transfer fees, all of which provide important sources of revenue.

Mr. John Fraser: If the Minister is so keen on sponsorship, why does the chairman of the Tory party have a subsidy as a Cabinet Minister? Why does not he get some sponsorship and run round with "Rupert Murdoch" across his chest, or something like that?

Mr. Moynihan: As usual, the hon. Gentleman talks nonsense. He should concentrate on what I have just said,


which is that television income alone over the next 10 years, or half that plus the money that the Football Trust has said that it will make available, would allow all the division clubs in 1999 to provide covered seating, which would meet the fundamental tenet of Lord Justice Taylor's report, with which every Conservative Member agrees even if the Opposition are divided on the merits of that proposal.

Mr. Denis Howell: Why have we not heard one word about the identity card scheme? Lord Justice Taylor condemned every stand that the Minister took on that.

Mr. Moynihan: If the right hon. Gentleman continues to intervene, he will not hear me deal with that, which I shall be only too happy to do.

Mr. Gary Waller: Let me stress the predicament of rugby league clubs, particularly those in the nether regions of the second division, which count their crowds in hundreds, have no access to the Football Trust and find it difficult to obtain sponsorship, but which may nevertheless find themselves, as designated clubs under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, faced with considerable costs.

Mr. Moynihan: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has clearly stated to the House, the application of the Taylor report to other sports will be given detailed consideration—not least in taking into account the point that my hon. Friend makes.
I return to the question of finance. The Opposition urged the Government to make more taxpayers' money available. It cost just under £1 million to police Chelsea football club, for example, last season, of which £140,000, net of value added tax, was recovered from the clubs—and £860,000 is a high price for the ratepayers of Hammersmith and Fulham to pay for the disruption caused outside the club and in the neighbourhood, particularly since the club estimates that only 2 per cent. of its gate comes from the local population.
It is wholly reasonable for the ratepayers of Hammersmith and Fulham to ask the Opposition why, when they face such large bills today, they should agree with a Labour party that seeks to increase taxation to pay for safety improvements at Stamford Bridge tomorrow.
There are three key reasons why we should reject Opposition calls to repeal the Football Spectators Act 1989. First, the Act provides the framework for the measures that Lord Justice Taylor discusses and recommends. Forty of Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations that impact directly on safety can be implemented by a football licensing authority, which is at the heart of part I of the Act.
Secondly, part I enables us to act swiftly in replacing stands by seated accommodation. If we did not have the legislative vehicle in place, we would not be in a position to give clubs as much time as possible to meet the timetable outlined in the report.
Thirdly, Lord Justice Taylor comments positively on part II of the Act, which will be a crucial measure later this year. Those three measures should have the unanimous support of the House, and it is sad to see Labour opposing them this evening. Those measures have the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends and of the British public. Only the Opposition parties appear divided between outright

calls for repealing the Act and internal division as to how they should respond to the key safety measures that the report recommends.
Lord Justice Taylor was quite right to address himself to the invitation to tender issued by the management consultants employed by the football authorities.

Mr. Denis Howell: What about the identity card scheme?

Mr. Moynihan: The right hon. Gentleman asks about the ID card scheme. If he had read the report, he would know that the only reference to the invitation to tender is right at the heart of Lord Justice Taylor's assessment of the national membership scheme. I shall be more than delighted to outline it in more detail to the hon. Gentleman after the debate.
On the basis of Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations, we have decided not to proceed with the scheme's implementation. As I have always told the House, we were insistent that we would not move to the establishment of the FMA until we had given full consideration to Lord Justice Taylor's report. That we have done. However, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made clear yesterday, the provisions in part I of the Football Spectators Act 1989 will remain in force, and the proposals for a national membership scheme will be put on the back burner. Work will continue to establish how Lord Justice Taylor's anxieties about the scheme can be met.
The problem of hooliganism has not gone away and it would be grossly irresponsible of the Government and the House not to give Lord Justice Taylor's package every support and to implement it. But be aware that we have a national membership scheme which, should we need it—[Interruption.] We can return to the House in due course to tackle the problem of hooliganism. As I have said many times, I believe in the national game. I want to see it fit that description—

Mr. Derek Foster: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 277.

Division No. 57]
[10.00pm


AYES


Abbott,Ms Diane
Boyes, Roland


Adams,Allen (Paisley N)
Bradley, Keith


Allen,Graham
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Alton,David
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Archer,Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Armstrong,Hilary
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Ashley,Rt Hon Jack
Buchan, Norman


Ashton,Joe
Caborn, Richard


Barnes,Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Callaghan, Jim


Barnes,Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Campbell, Menzies (File NE)


Barron,Kevin
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Battle,John
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Beckett,Margaret
Canavan, Dennis


Beith,A. J.
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Bell,Stuart
Cartwright, John


Benn,Rt Hon Tony
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bennett,A. F. (D'nt'n amp; R'dish)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bermingham,Gerald
Clay, Bob


Bidwell,Sydney
Clelland, David


Blair,Tony
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Blunkett,David
Cohen, Harry


Boateng, Paul
Cook, Robin (Livingston)




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Durant, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Eggar, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Emery, Sir Peter


Amess, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Amos, Alan
Evennett, David


Arbuthnot, James
Fallon, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Favell, Tony


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Ashby, David
Fishburn, John Dudley


Aspinwall, Jack
Fookes, Dame Janet


Atkins, Robert
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baldry, Tony
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forth, Eric


Batiste, Spencer
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fox, Sir Marcus


Beggs, Roy
Franks, Cecil


Bellingham, Henry
Freeman, Roger


Bendel!, Vivian
French, Douglas


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gale, Roger


Benyon, W.
Gardiner, George


Bevan, David Gilroy
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gill, Christopher


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Body, Sir Richard
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gorst, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gow, Ian


Boswell, Tim
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bottomley, Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gregory, Conal


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr SirRhodes
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Grist, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Ground, Patrick


Bright, Graham
Grylls, Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg amp; CITs)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Buck, Sir Antony
Hanley, Jeremy


Budgen, Nicholas
Hannam, John


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Butcher, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Butler, Chris
Hawkins, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayward, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chope, Christopher
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Churchill, Mr
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Gran, James
Irvine, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Irving, Sir Charles


Curry, David
Jack, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd amp; Spald'g)
Jackson, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Janman, Tim


Day, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Dunn, Bob
Kilfedder, James


MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Corbett, Robin
McAllion, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
McAvoy, Thomas


Cousins, Jim
McCartney, Ian


Crowther, Stan
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cryer, Bob
McFall, John


Cummings, John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McLeish, Henry


Cunningham, Dr John
Maclennan, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
McNamara, Kevin


Darling, Alistair
McWilliam, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Madden, Max


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Marek, Dr John


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dixon, Don
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dobson, Frank
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Doran, Frank
Martlew, Eric


Douglas, Dick
Maxton, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Meacher, Michael


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Meale, Alan


Eadie, Alexander
Michael, Alun


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fatchett, Derek
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l amp; Bute)


Fearn, Ronald
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morgan, Rhodri


Fisher, Mark
Morley, Elliot


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foster, Derek
Mullin, Chris


Foulkes, George
Murphy, Paul


Fraser, John
Nellist, Dave


Fyfe, Maria
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Galloway, George
O'Brien, William


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
O'Neill, Martin


George, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Golding, Mrs Llin
Patchett, Terry


Gordon, Mildred
Pendry, Tom


Gould, Bryan
Pike, Peter L.


Graham, Thomas
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Prescott, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Primarolo, Dawn


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Harman, Ms Harriet
Randall, Stuart


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Haynes, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Heffer, Eric S.
Robinson, Geoffrey


Henderson, Doug
Rogers, Allan


Hinchliffe, David
Rooker, Jeff


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld amp;Kilsyth)
Rowlands, Ted


Home Robertson, John
Ruddock, Joan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Sheerman, Barry


Howells, Geraint
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hoyle, Doug
Short, Clare


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Illsley, Eric
Snape, Peter


Ingram, Adam
Soley, Clive


Janner, Greville
Stott, Roger


Jones, Barry (Alyn amp;Deeside)
Strang, Gavin


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Straw, Jack


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Kennedy, Charles
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Kirkwood, Archy
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lamond, James
Turner, Dennis


Leadbitter, Ted
Vaz, Keith


Leighton, Ron
Wallace, James


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Walley, Joan


Litherland, Robert
Wareing, Robert N.


Livingstone, Ken
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Loyden, Eddie
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Wilson, Brian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Winnick, David



Wise, Mrs Audrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Wray, Jimmy
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Kirkhope, Timothy
Morrison, Sir Charles


Knapman, Roger
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Moss, Malcolm


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Knox, David
Mudd, David


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Neale, Gerrard


Lang, Ian
Nelson, Anthony


Latham, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Lawrence, Ivan
Nicholls, Patrick


Lee, John (Pendle)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Norris, Steve


Lilley, Peter
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Page, Richard


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Paice, James


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Patnick, Irvine


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Maclean, David
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


McLoughlin, Patrick
Pawsey, James


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Made!, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Malins, Humfrey
Portillo, Michael


Mans, Keith
Powell, William (Corby)


Maples, John
Price, Sir David


Marland, Paul
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Marlow, Tony
Redwood, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Rhodes James, Robert


Mates, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Maude, Hon Francis
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rost, Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Mellor, David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Miller, Sir Hal
Shaw, David (Dover)


Mills, Iain
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Miscampbell, Norman
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Moate, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Monro, Sir Hector
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Shersby, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sims, Roger
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walden, George


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Waller, Gary


Stern, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stevens, Lewis
Warren, Kenneth


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Watts, John


Summerson, Hugo
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wilshire, David


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Winterton, Nicholas


Thorne, Neil
Wolfson, Mark


Thornton, Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Thurnham, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Tredinnick, David



Trippier, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. David Lightbown.


Waddington, Rt Hon David

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the thorough and thoughtful report made by Lord Justice Taylor into the causes of the Hillsborough disaster and regards its proposals as the basis for major improvements in the organisation of Association Football; welcomes the lead given by the Government in pressing for all-seater stadia, a proposal since endorsed in Lord Justice Taylor's report; welcomes the Government's acceptance of the majority of Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations; and urges the football authorities and the clubs to implement swiftly those recommendations which require action of them.

Orders of the Day — Private Medical Insurance

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the Order Paper there is a note to the effect that the Select Committee's consideration of the statutory instruments with which the House is about to deal has not yet been completed. There is a correction. The Committee met this afternoon and completed its consideration of the instruments. In an extract from its third report, the Select Committee
draws the special attention of the House to the above instrument"—
the Private Medical Insurance (Disentitlement to Tax
Relief and Approved Benefits) Regulations 1989—
on the ground that it requires elucidation".
That elucidation is provided in a memorandum attached to the report. I thought that it would be of benefit to hon. Members to have that knowledge.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. Is the report available in the Vote Office?

Mr. Cryer: It is, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Private Medical Insurance (Disentitlement to Tax Relief and Approved Benefits) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 2389) dated 19th December 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be annulled.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following motion:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Private Medical Insurance (Tax Relief) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 2387), dated 18th December 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be annulled.

Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for raising that helpful point of order. Some of his concerns will be raised by me and other Opposition Members.
It is ironic that, on the day when Britain's ambulance workers employed by the National Health Service have come to the House of Commons to present their case, the House has before it two statutory instruments that set in place tax handouts to private medical insurance schemes costing, on the Government's calculation, some four times the cost of settling the ambulance workers' claim. Set alongside each other in this way, the two issues provide a telling and disgusting insight into the Government's priorities.
On Second Reading of the Finance Bill last year, the then Chief Secretary, later Foreign Secretary and now Chancellor of the Exchequer, told the House that these proposals would ease the burden on the National Health Service. He did not go on to say how that would happen, and surely it is a fair question to ask: how does it relieve the burden on the NHS to give a tax handout to those who already have private medical insurance? The Government's figures show that some 90 per cent. of the cost of the proposals in the coming year are dead-weight costs. This expenditure is a subsidy to existing schemes, so I again ask: how does that help relieve the burden on the NHS? Surely the correct way to do that is to give the NHS the money direct.
The Government's first-year costings do not tell the whole story—they were never intended to do that. The understatement of the first-year costs is deliberately designed. As the Chancellor told us on Second Reading, it
needs to be seen in perspective".
He went on to boast about the money that the Government were giving the NHS. Again, the tabling of these regulations just before the House rose for the Christmas recess was hardly designed to ensure the maximum publicity for the proposals, yet what is set out could have far-reaching significance for the NHS.
These arrangements for claiming tax rebates under the scheme do not speak of a modest proposal, operating at the margins—a proposal that
needs to be seen in perspective".
The arrangements that have been put in hand for basic rate taxpayers and, indeed, non-taxpayers are similar to those currently in place for claiming mortgage tax relief. It is a private medical insurance MIRAS scheme. Just as there is no real point in introducing tax relief to reward people for doing what they would have done anyway without the relief, so there is no real point in putting those arrangements for claiming into place for a scheme that is intended to be modest.
On the basis of the evidence so far, it seems reasonable to suspect that something more far-reaching is intended. When dealing with the Conservative party, it is important to watch carefully what it is doing rather than just listen to what it says. There can surely be no doubt that the arrangements could be a stepping stone for the introduction of more general tax reliefs for private medical insurance. It is pretty easy to predict the way in which the debate inside the private medical insurance industry will go—indeed, it has begun already. The industry mentions the costs of the administrative arrangements that accompany tax relief in this form—costs that fall on the industry and therefore, eventually, on the consumer.
The industry makes the point that encouraging special private medical insurance for pensioners distorts existing cross-subsidy arrangements between older—and therefore more vulnerable—and younger consumers of its product, to the industry's disadvantage. Arguing from that point of view, the logical next step is to make the existing reliefs more generally available. No doubt, the Chancellor will argue that such a step would relieve the burden on the Health Service even more. If that is not the Government's true intention, now is the time for them to say so. If the Minister can give the House a firm assurance that those reliefs will be extended before the next general election, I shall happily give way and afford him an opportunity to do so. The hon. Gentleman may refer to it in his speech, as he does not seem to want to do so in mine.

Mr. Tim Smith: rose—

Mr. Brown: I am prepared to take assurances from wherever I can get them. I suspect that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) has slightly more sympathy with my points than most Conservative Members. If the hon. Gentleman felt that in some future Conservative Government an assurance from him would be binding, I should willingly give way to him. It is disappointing that he obviously does not think that.
There can be no doubt that the regulations reduce the tax base in an unfair and socially divisive way. The true subsidy is, of course, open ended and it is not limited to the Government's estimate of £40 million.
In a pretence of fair play, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Second Reading:
Even non-taxpayers will benefit because they, too, will pay their premiums net of tax relief."—[Official Report, 25 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 818.]
There are three broad categories of non-taxpayers, but for the sake of my argument we shall leave royalty out of this, which leaves two broad categories. The first consists of those who are rich, but who are non-taxpayers because they are advised by professional tax avoiders. Under the regulations, even the most unscrupulous tax avoider will receive the relief, whether he pays tax or not. The second category includes 75 per cent. of Britain's pensioners who do not pay income tax because they are too poor and who are too poor to pay private medical insurance premiums.
Why should older people have to pay into private medical schemes? They have been frightened into it by a pretty realistic assessment of what the Government intend to do to the NHS and frightened into believing that, even on a restricted budget, private medical insurance must be a priority and a matter of life and death. Why should Britain's pensioners be bullied into paying private medical insurance premiums? Have not they, of all people, already paid towards the NHS? Now that they are more likely, because of their age, to need to use the NHS, the Government say, "Pay again, go private and we shall give you tax relief." How typical it is of the Government's business dealings, exemplified by the privatisation programme, that they are trying to sell again to Britain's pensioners the health care provision that they thought that the NHS already gave.
Needless to say, the statutory instruments fly in the face of the Government's stated tax policy. The Government's case used to be that they were reviewing and, where possible, eliminating allowances with a view to reducing overall rates of direct taxation. Tax allowances were a form of public expenditure, which were listed in the White Paper. The Conservative party's case used to be that it sought to reduce the burden on ordinary taxpayers, but here the Conservative Government are doing the exact opposite. The taxpayer has to pay for handouts to pensioners with private medical insurance, 90 per cent. of whom were in such schemes anyway, even without the inducement of the relief.
I want to draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to several matters of detail which arise from the two statutory instruments, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South referred in a point of order at the start of the debate. Regulation 4 of the Private Medical Insurance (Tax Relief) Regulations 1989 sets out the information that has to be provided by an individual to claim relief at source. Part of the information required is a certificate specifying that the contract satisfies the requirements of section 54(2) of the Finance Act 1989. That provision requires that the person who is insured by the contract is resident in the United Kingdom. I believe that the regulations should also require the individual to notify the Inland Revenue if the position changes at any time during the period that is covered by the insurance. Why do the regulations not require that? Why should it be possible to take the relief and then to move overseas?
On a similar point, why does regulation 10 not require non-United Kingdom insurers to make the information that regulation 10 requires available in the United Kingdom? Under regulation 12, which relates to qualifying insurers, a declaration has to be made to the

effect either that the person is carrying on a business in the United Kingdom or, if not, that he is a national of a member state of the EC. Should not the insurer certify that the contract will be brought in, in its entirety, as part of the business carried on in a member state and that it will not be reinsured offshore? Does not the wording provide a loophole to permit offshore reinsurance?
When we discussed these matters in July 1989, the then Financial Secretary—now the Chief Secretary—announced in a written answer a broad outline of the areas that would be eligible for tax relief. That was with a background of the industry lobbying against what it felt might be an unduly restrictive framework of regulations. Hence the then Financial Secretary opened his July answer with a robust:
Our intention is that a comprehensive range of treatments will be permitted under private medical insurance contracts which attract tax relief."—[Official Report, 19 July 1989; Vol. 157, c. 181.]
The Medical Insurance (Disentitlement to Tax Relief and Approved Benefits) Regulations set out the detail. It is pretty comprehensive. The regulations provide that services must be associated with the treatment or consequent upon it. That is pretty broad. I know that it was the then Financial Secretary's intention to exclude alternative medicines, but I am by no means certain that that is what the regulations do. Will the Minister assure the House that it will not be possible for, say, a wealthy, eccentric pensioner to undergo therapeutic treatment by standing in a bath of water and having small electric shocks passed through it and to claim tax relief at the top rate on the whole bizarre arrangement? Let me put it like this. She could, in any event, claim under the regulations for the private ambulance to take her there and back. The regulations provide for generous tax relief for the use of private ambulances, when the Government are willing to see the industrial dispute in the ambulance service that the rest of us use drag on and on. There can be no morality in that.
On the subject of morality, are not the regulations open to abuse in another way? It would not be the first time that the Conservative party had got itself into trouble with society osteopaths, but in Harold Macmillan's day nobody, so far as I am aware, suggested that the arrangements should qualify for tax relief.
A provision limiting accommodation, as a service, to not more than 14 days is surely easily evaded by regular return trips to hospital. Anyway, who will enforce the provision of accommodation for the patient's family or friends? In fact, there is very little in the regulations that allows for supervision of the arrangement, nor is there much history of the supervision of private medical insurance. The Government, who proclaim themselves to be keen on investor protection, provide no special protection for consumers of private medical insurance. There is no body to adjudicate on disputes. There is just the individual, probably ill, confronted with the might of an insurance company that will not pay up.
These rotten and unenforceable regulations do nothing to improve this already contemptible provision in the taxation system. The proposals are designed to spearhead development of a two-tier Health Service, with top rate tax relief and a queue-jumping inside track for those who can afford it, and an under-resourced and neglected Health Service for the rest of us. Private medical insurance is a risky business. Preconditions are not covered and the


policy may not cover the specific illness with which the insured ends up. And of course one cannot rely on the tax relief either, because an incoming Labour Government will abolish it in its entirety and put the money safely back into the National Health Service where it belongs.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): I apologise to the House if my voice is at all slurred. It is not because I have dined well but because I have been to the dentist—an NHS dentist, I hasten to add.
I am grateful for the opportunity the Opposition have given us to debate these instruments, but I am slightly surprised that we are being asked to debate them and that they are being prayed against. After all, the most important of the two statutory instruments is named "Disentitlement to Tax Relief and Approved Benefits". It is a limiting and restrictive measure. It restricts the availability of these reliefs, to which I understand the Opposition object.
The rationale was debated and the debate was resoundingly won in the Committee on the Finance Bill and on the Floor of the House last year. As it has been reopened, it is worth recalling why the measure was introduced. The number of people covered by private medicine doubled in the 1980s.

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras): Not by individual choice.

Mr. Lilley: From a sedentary position, the hon. Member points out that a number of trade union members were collectively covered by private medical insurance and contributed to the 10 per cent. of the population who are so covered. But only 5 per cent. of over-60s continue with private medicine, obviously because on retirement people who have had insurance cover, often provided by their employers, find that the premiums rise as their income falls. The relief is introduced to help people in precisely those circumstances to continue their private medical insurance, if they so wish.
The regulations have a second purpose—to relieve pressure on the National Health Service, especially for elective surgery, and thereby enable the NHS to provide a better service for those who choose or cannot afford to do other than remain on the NHS.
It might be possible to mount a critique—for a moment I thought that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), in his lucid and witty speech, was going to follow this line of argument—that the relief will not be sufficiently attractive to encourage many more people into private medical insurance, and therefore will not provide much relief for the National Health Service. But he rapidly abandoned that line of argument and went in the other direction, as did every Opposition Member in Committee on the Finance Act 1989. The hon. Gentleman was worried that the relief would prove too attractive, that it would attract a great deal more private medical insurance among those over 60, and that as a result the relief would cost more than the initial £40 million which we expect in the first year.
The hon. Gentleman asked how the regulations could provide relief. It is fairly obvious that every extra person attracted into private medical insurance provides relief for

the NHS. It means that potentially fewer patients need treatment on the NHS. So long as the cost of the tax relief on operations carried out privately is less than the cost of providing similar extra operations on the NHS, tax relief must be a more cost-effective way than extra spending. This will be the case so long as the cost of the operation in the private sector is less than two and a half times what it would be in the public sector. Of course, it is four times where basic rate tax relief is concerned, when we are talking about 25 per cent. of the cost of private operations being borne by tax relief as against 100 per cent. if they were carried out in the public sector.
If Opposition Members are seriously suggesting that private medical operations are carried out at such a multiple of the cost of operations in the NHS, they must also be saying that pay beds in the NHS must be enormously profitable, because they can sell at the private medical price operations provided at NHS cost. Therefore, they would be raking in a great profit. It is extremely odd that they sought to close down and eliminate pay beds from the National Health Service, despite the fact that it is generally recognised that pay beds provide a certain profit, but not on anything like the level that would follow from the costs that Opposition Members suppose.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Surely the Minister is making the wrong comparison between the cost of the operation in the public sector and the cost of the tax relief on the premiums, including the premiums of those who do not have operations on the National Health Service because they are not ill, and the premiums of those who are not able to to avail themselves of private insurance arrangements because they do not cover the circumstances which arise. He should be comparing the cost of the hospital operation with the cost of the tax relief on the premiums.

Mr. Lilley: That is what I am implicitly doing. The premiums reflect the cost of treatment, which, by and large, the non-profit-making private medical insurance organisations have to pay for. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that those organisations are surreptitiously making profits and creaming them off, he ought to report that more publicly. But the whole principle of insurance is that those who do not require treatment—or make losses or suffer damage—are paying for those those who do. Matters are evened out through the cost of the premiums.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East asked a number of questions about the contents of the regulations. He said that the regulations would allow all sorts of strange treatments—the nature of which caused some amusement—to be available on the NHS. I do not know why anyone should wish to claim that. If he reads the regulations closely—

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The NHS?

Mr. Lilley: I am sorry. I meant available on private and medical insurance and therefore eligible for relief.
If the hon. Gentleman reads the regulations closely, he will find that they restrict relief to those operations and treatments that are more frequently carried out on the National Health Service than in the private sector. That is a simple way of excluding, for example, inessential plastic surgery. Essential plastic surgery operations are carried


out on the NHS, but not purely cosmetic plastic surgery operations, which would therefore be excluded under the definition.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: We all know 80-year-olds who want to have their faces lifted.

Mr. Lilley: Exactly.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East asked me to predict whether any extension of the tax relief was envisaged. I have made it clear that the relief deals with a specific problem—that is to say, people dropping out of medical insurance schemes on retirement. That is its purpose and that, I think, is a justification which separates it from any wider relief.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: We seemed to be so close there. Can the Minister give the clear and specific undertaking that the reliefs will not be extended at all before the next general election?

Mr. Lilley: I thought that I was very clear and specific.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me whether regulation 12 would prevent offshore reassurance. The answer to that is that there is no need. The important point is that the insurer must be in the European Community. If it reinsures the risk, that makes no difference to the tax relief due.

Mr. Paul Boateng: Wrong piece of paper.

Mr. Lilley: I am moving on from the issue that fascinated the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East so much.
Although the hon. Gentleman did not emphasise it tonight, he has tried to pretend on previous occasions that the relief that we are offering for medical insurance for the over-60s would merely divert resources away from the NHS and not provide any relief to it. Underlying that is what, by analogy with the famous lump of labour fallacy, one might call the "lump of health care" fallacy. Clearly it is a fallacy to suggest that the supply of health care cannot be expanded to cope with the demand generated by £40 million-worth of tax relief. How else could there be enough extra supply of health care available to meet the £2½ billion of extra money which we have pumped into the National Health Service this year—for about the second year running? If we expect that the supply of health care can be increased if extra money is made available on the substantial scale on which the Government have made it available to the Health Service, and that that there will be a response to it, it is reasonable to suppose that on the comparatively small scale that the insurance relief represents resources will also become available in the private sector to meet the extra demand so created.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: How does the Minister account for the 90 per cent. Dead-weight cost in the Government's first-year costings for the project? Surely the overwhelming bulk of the relief that they are to give is to people who already have private medical insurance, so it will make no difference at all.

Mr. Lilley: Simply because it is the first year and it will take time for the medical insurance companies to market the relief and to expand it. As has been said from a

sedentary position, that will lead to a greater relief, but, as I said earlier, it will lead to a greater relief of the burden on the NHS. That is both likely and welcome.
Only those who oppose private medical insurance and treatment per se are against the relief, which is basically the attitude of the Opposition. They resent people making provision for their own health care. We believe that in a free country it is perfectly right for people to have the opportunity to do so and that it is reasonable to provide encouragement for those who are over 60 to continue with their private health care. This modest relief enables them to do so while reducing the pressures on the Health Service. I commend that and the regulations to the House.

Mr. A. J. Beith: It is absolute nonsense for the Minister to claim that it is necessary to be opposed to all private health care and all private health insurance in order to be opposed to the tax relief that the regulations embody. The Minister must be in favour of all sorts of things on which he does not give tax relief. I presume that he is in favour of child care being more widely available, but he is stalwartly opposed to giving any tax reliefs for child care and he advances all sorts of arguments about why it should not be done. I am sure that, among other things, the Minister is in favour of all sorts of environmental measures on which he is currently resisting tax reliefs in discussions with other Ministers.
It is simply nonsense to claim that anything that is good must have a tax relief attached to it. There are people who are in favour of private medical insurance or who certainly think that it is a proper legal and legitimate activity, whether or not they wish to encourage it, who do not feel that this tax relief is necessary. That part of the Minister's argument is therefore plainly absurd.
Equally, there are strong reasons to believe that the signals that are given out by the regulations are extremely damaging to the National Health Service and that they are intended to be so. They give many people the signal that they may not be able to rely on the National Health Service if the Government stay in office for much longer and that they would therefore be well advised to make alternative provision. The Government are saying, "What's more, in order to underline that, we'll offer you a tax relief if you are retired to encourage you to take out that provision." That is a bad and demoralising signal for everybody who works in the National Health Service.
The Minister must have argued on numerous occasions that any tax relief is a subsidy and a deliberate distortion of what would otherwise be a market choice or a market decision. Some tax reliefs are defensible and have a purpose, so presumably this one has a purpose. The purpose is to encourage people to believe that they need private health insurance instead of relying on the National Health Service. Presumably that is the only basis on which the Minister is willing to agree that such a subsidy should be offered—unless, of course, it is simply the consequence of the Prime Minister insisting, as she has done over other things, such as football identity cards, "Never mind the logic, I want it, so the Government are going to have it." Perhaps that is what has turned the Treasury's traditional arguments against tax reliefs on their heads. The regulations provide tax relief in an area and in such a way


as to lead people to believe that the National Health Service is far from safe in the hands of the present Government.
The Minister advanced the argument that it is a tax relief of limited purpose. It is intended to encourage those people who have had occupational schemes of private health insurance, partly provided by their employers, to continue those schemes at the point where they become most vulnerable, when they retire. If that was so, the tax relief would be confined to people who were already members of such schemes, and it is not so confined. The Minister made it clear that it will be open to people—indeed, they will be encouraged—to take out such schemes anew, even if they have had no part in any previous employers' scheme. That limited purpose cannot, therefore, be the regulations' purpose.
If the Minister has any hopes of reducing the massive dead-weight costs of the scheme, he must be hoping that it will attract a great deal of new business, some of which will not come from people who are simply continuing with their existing health insurance that might otherwise become too expensive for them when the retire.
I said that all tax relief is a subsidy. Equally, all tax relief is a diversion of funds. There may be a justification for choosing to divert money from some other purpose to relieve the premium costs of people who pay for particular insurance policies. However, no justification has been advanced for this measure which is not intrinsically harmful to the whole concept of the National Health Service.
Many people need no encouragement from tax relief to sustain the private health insurance industry. The diversion of funds seems even more pointless when all that it does is to put money into the pockets of people who already, without tax relief, have decided that they wish freely to spend their money on private health insurance. They are fully entitled to do so, but they needed no tax relief to make them do so and they do not need it to enable them to continue to do so.
I am strongly opposed to the regulations. If I had not known the Government better, I might have imagined that the phrase "disentitlement to tax relief"; meant that the Government had seen the error of their ways. We know that they have not and that they are still deeply committed to the scheme.
I find myself in agreement with almost everything that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said in his opening remarks. However, although I was amused by him, I began to part company with him when he spoke about alternative medicine. There is no logic in discriminating heavily against alternative medicine in operating the scheme.
Some of the people who are most keen—keen is the wrong word; perhaps I should say compelled—to make use of health provision outside the National Health Service are those who want to use forms of alternative medicine that are not readily available within the Health Service. Once the door is opened to tax relief for insurance schemes, it would not be right to have some general presumption against legitimate and well-established aspects of alternative medicine in the scheme. I hope that the Minister will not take the satire of the hon. Member for

Newcastle upon Tyne, East as a signal that there is general approval for the idea that alternative medicine should be pushed out.
I suppose that it is in the nature of things that alternative medicine has an uncomfortable relationship with the National Health Service. Some operates within it and some operates without it. The pattern is not even across the country. The relationship of alternative medicine with the private sector is such that I hope that the Minister will not discriminate against alternative medicine in the operation of the scheme.
We cannot be much impressed by the mess that the statutory instrument is in. I know that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, seeks to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will say more about it in detail. I shall confine myself to the passage in the memorandum supplied to the Committee by the Inland Revenue. Referring to one of the oversights, it says:
Whilst this oversight is most regrettable, it does not affect the meaning of the regulations. The references to the repealed provisions are simply ineffective and have to be construed as if they were not there.
Why on earth do the Government bring before the House regulations which are the law which have to be construed as if they were not there? What are we coming to? Only last week the House was presented with a statutory instrument on which it had to vote without knowing the outcome of the considerations of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments or the Committee which considered the merits of the instrument. Week after week, we see delegated legislation pour through the House in more and more of a mess. The Government should be thoroughly ashamed of bringing before the House statutory instruments which are not fit to be on the statute book.

Mr. Tim Smith: My hon. Friend the Minister probably knows that I am less than enthusiastic about this new tax relief, as I explained when we debated the matter in the Committee which considered the Finance Bill last summer. Having listened carefully to his arguments this evening, I am no more persuaded now than I was then.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) asked about the possibility of the relief being extended so that everyone could obtain tax relief. That would not be an expensive exercise. Millions of people already have such relief. It is provided by their employer and is tax-deductible for the purposes of corporation tax. They have to pay tax on it as a benefit in kind. The taxability of the benefit would have to be withdrawn. I should be completely opposed to that.
Treasury Ministers have never seemed to me enthusiastic about the new relief, so I am sure that they do not want to extend it any further than necessary. I hope that they have got Inland Revenue officials to crawl over the regulations, even if they are defective, to ensure that the relief is restricted as far as possible. For that reason, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) who said that it should be extended to alternative medicine. Since I was against the relief in the first place, I should like to see it restricted as far as possible and the cost to other taxpayers kept to the minimum.
My hon. Friend the Minister said that the first object of the exercise was to help people on retirement who went


from a situation where their employers paid for such private health care to paying for it themselves. There are many other things provided for by employers for which people must pay on retirement—for example, a company motor car or other benefits in kind. I do not think that anyone would suggest that there should be tax relief on such items. On retirement, people simply have to cope on a lower income with some costs that were previously met on their behalf by their employer. I understand the argument, but I do not think that it is a powerful one.
My hon. Friend also said that the tax relief would help the National Health Service, as it would encourage people to make private health care provision and to have certain operations carried out at private hospitals. However, one of the greatest burdens on the NHS is our old people. That is no criticism of them: it is a fact of life that, as one gets older, one is more prone to illness. The growing geriatric population is a great burden on the NHS, and many of the ailments and illnesses from which the old suffer are uninsurable.
In the long run, the NHS always picks up the tab. I do not believe that the relief will provide the help to the NHS for which a case has been made. I agree with other hon. Members that there will be a substantial dead-weight cost—the Treasury also accepts that. On any objective cost-benefit analysis, the relief is not worth pursuing.
I am against eroding the tax base, and I look extremely critically at all proposed new tax reliefs. Soon after the relief was announced—in February, I believe—it did not come as a surprise to me that people wrote to me to ask whether we could have tax relief on private school fees. Others might argue that tax relief should be given to commuters to meet their fares. Except in exceptional and well-justified circumstances, I do not see why one group of taxpayers should be required to subsidise other taxpayers. I should like to see as broad a tax base as possible and tax rates as low as possible.
I hope that the Inland Revenue has looked closely at the regulations. I am certain that it has as it will want to restrict the relief as much as possible. A better way in which to spend the £40 million would have been to give some relief to all tax-paying pensioners by increasing the age allowance. Those tax-paying pensioners who do not take advantage of the relief available as a result of the regulations will be subsidising those who do. No case has been made in favour of that.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I want to deal with the position of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which does not concern itself with the merits of instruments. I shall conclude by expressing my views about the merits of the instrument. The Committee, however, would not want to impose an attitude about the merits of the instrument, as the function of our Committee is to deal purely with its technicalities.
As I mentioned on a point of order, we reported the instrument, as the Committee thinks that it needs elucidation. The Committee can report an instrument to the House if it believes that the drafting is unclear. The Committee asked for a memorandum from the Inland Revenue on why regulation 6(1) of the Private Medical Insurance (Disentitlement to Tax Relief and Approved Benefits) Regulations 1989 specified that drugs used in the

course of surgical procedures were covered, but did not similarly refer to drugs used in the course of medical procedures.
We felt that by specifying "drugs and dressings" in regulation 6(1)(c) in an attempt to clarify the position, the Department had created yet more confusion. We suggested that the confusion was made worse by the reference to drugs and dressings, which suggests that things used in providing care after an operation—for example, changing bandages—are excluded from cover. It also leaves in doubt the question whether drugs and dressings used in the provision of relevant services, such as the fitting of prosthetics, are also covered.
The Committee takes the view that legislation which goes from this place should be as clear as we can possibly make it. If this case is argued, it will be argued in the courts—an expensive and lengthy procedure which, in the Committee's and certainly my view, should be unnecessary.
It is worth considering why the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments is having to report so many of the instruments to the House. The Government determine the House of Commons' timetable. They were determined to put down the prayer—albeit tabled by the Opposition—for debate today. The Select Committee did not have adequate time to carry out its function.
Its proper function should have enabled the report to be in the Vote Office in advance of this debate so that all hon. Members could see from the Order Paper that the statutory instrument had been reported to the House. The Committee is obliged to do that under the Standing Order by which it was established so that Members can get hold of reports and see for themselves whether they want to take part in the debate. They can then make a judgment about the information. That is our function.
However, the Government are rushing through too many pieces of subordinated legislation, too many statutory instruments, for the procedure to be properly followed. The Select Committee on Statutory Instruments takes a fortnight to carry out its business. We meet every Tuesday at 4.15 pm. We consider an instrument on the first Tuesday and, if we find a flaw—an abuse of power, unusual use of powers or, as in this case, lack of elucidation in the drafting, making it ambiguous—we are obliged to ask the Department for a memorandum.
We generally consider the memorandum the following Tuesday—one week later. Today, we considered the instrument, produced the report and put it in the Vote Office. However, we simply could not do that if there were half a dozen instruments which needed reporting on the same day. Normally, we would have reported this instrument for next Tuesday, in plenty of time to get it in the Vote Office and for Members to consider it.
One difficulty is that the rubric on the Order Paper says that we have not completed our consideration. Some hon. Members may have seen that during the day, when it was perfectly true, who are not here now because they are waiting until next week when they think that the Committee's report will be completed.
The Government, far from making good their claim in 1979 that they would take government off the backs of the people, are in reality imposing more and more legislative burdens every week. If we take as a standard the number of statutory instruments which were produced by the last Labour Government—a basis of comparison that the Government are fond of making—we find that the


Government produce more statutory instruments each year than the last Labour Government did. They now produce them at the rate of 2,500 a year.
Such is the Government's predilection for subordinate legislation that, during the past 18 months, they have produced 23 subordinate instruments containing Henry VIII clauses, which empower a Minister to change private legislation. In some of those cases, there was no further reference to the House because they did not have to be debated under the affirmative procedure; nor were they subject to the negative procedure and a prayer, unlike the one that we are dealing with tonight.
The result of all that is that the House does not have adequate time to deal with statutory instruments. Today, we have been rushed; I have had to distribute copies of the memorandum and the instrument to those of my hon. Friends who were interested. That is not good enough. The Select Committee is not being allowed to carry out its functions.
Last week, there was no copy in the Vote Office of the report of the debate upstairs on another statutory instrument—a substitute for a debate on the Floor of the House, due to lack of time. On that occasion, we were debating a statutory instrument which the Committee reported on the same day and which was placed in the Vote Office in the same hasty way as happened today. Such achievements are possible only because of the Committee Clerks' great devotion to duty, making that extra effort for the benefit of the House. Nevertheless, the procedure is still unsatisfactory.
Moreover, we did not have the verbatim report of the Committee's proceedings from Hansard, because Hansard itself is over-burdened with the Government's legislation. The way in which the Government machinery is spewing out Bills of one sort or another and a massive number of statutory instruments is becoming quite oppressive.
Let me comment briefly on the merits of the instruments. I do so not as Chairman of the Committee, because the Committee does not deal with the merits of an instrument—only with its technicalities—but I am sure that the Committee would share my concern about the pressure on it to deal with instruments and to carry out our duties to Parliament. If the Government reduced the number of statutory instruments that they are producing and honoured their pledge of 1979 to reduce the legislative burden, they would be doing us all a favour.
The Government are producing this legislation hastily, to mount a partial attack on the NHS. No matter how much the Government proclaim their devotion to the NHS, the privatisation of services, the opting-out scheme for NHS hospitals, the indicative drug budgets being imposed on doctors, and these statutory instruments giving tax concessions to people who are already benefiting from the private sector are all part of a general erosion of the NHS. The Government show a strong mistrust of the medical profession, which is not shared by the population at large.
The Government are not prepared to confront the NHS, because they know that it is far too popular. People see it as part of their freedom—a freedom from fear. That was the title of a book writen by Aneurin Bevan, following his experiences. A person's life is enriched if he has no fear

of doctors or hospital bills. The Government know that the NHS is deeply etched into the lives of the British people, who are determined to defend it.
In 1948, the consultants threatened strike action against the development of the NHS, but now the consultants, doctors, nurses, porters and the people at large are organising to defend the NHS. That is what the ambulance men and women are doing. They are defending the service by seeking to maintain their standards of payment and training.
The statutory instruments are part of that general attack on the NHS. Even a Conservative Member has criticised this tax relief. This is a politically willed tax relief and has nothing to do with equity, justice or fairness. It is simply part of the Government's attempt to erode the NHS but, like all the other attacks on the NHS, it will fail.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Often, there is a kind of logic behind the Treasury's gifts to a reluctant nation. It is not that the Treasury wants to give presents that bear a strong resemblance to Miss Haversham's wedding cake—more a case of the political objectives that they can help to achieve.
The Treasury knows very well that the tax concession before the House will make no difference to the elderly people using the National Health Service. However, it knows too that an increasing number of people who have paid premiums for private health care, or who had those premiums paid for them, discover as they grow elderly and start to suffer from routine conditions that if they can continue to receive cover at all, it will be at a much increased premium.
That is the case not only in respect of private scheme members suffering from perfectly straightforward conditions, but in relation to exclusions. We all know of people who contributed to private health care schemes all their working lives. When they retire or, even worse, contract a chronic illness, they may discover that they are no longer welcomed by private insurers—who regard their schemes as offering protection only for as long as the benefit is on their side.
Because the Treasury understood the political import of that situation, it had to do something to encourage the public at least to maintain their existing payments to private health care schemes. I know of many people who paid into schemes almost from the first day they started work, only to discover that when they began to develop the early symptoms of a major carcinoma, for example, their insurers started making it clear that they would not continue to receive payment for treatment. As that becomes public knowledge, increasing numbers of the elderly, on reaching a point in their lives when they must consider a reduced standard of living in managing on a pension, will decide that one thing that will not benefit them is private health care.
Politically, that situation is extremely damaging for the Government, because even after squeezing the Health Service quite brutally, as they have done over the past 10 years, they still need large numbers of people to contribute to private health schemes, if only because they are part of the political ethos that the Government want to promote. People who suddenly cease to pay premiums when they reach 60 are a political embarrassment—particularly as they are mainly those who have always supported the


Conservative party and who will express their views on the difficulties that they have encountered in no uncertain terms.
The Treasury has come along with a scheme that is not intended to help the NHS. That is its last purpose. Nor is it intended to provide better cover for those who have contributed to private schemes and who are now elderly—because many schemes automatically exclude such members if they develop a major illness. Instead, the regulation is designed to make a political point—to keep up the numbers of those paying for private health care.
That is being done not because the private sector offers the best way of delivering health care, because we know that it is one of the worst and most expensive. It is being done because the Conservative Government want to make a political point, which they will be unable to make if the public cease to contribute to private health care. The Minister can hardly believe that it is in anyone's interest to make such tax relief available unless it is meant as a useful political gesture. It may be exactly that, but that is all that it is.
The average voter will not he taken in. Not even the average Conservative voter who has contributed to private health care for many years will be taken in. Certainly the scheme will do nothing to shift the burden of expense, because the elderly require more health care, and they need it delivered to them by the most direct and efficient route possible. The scheme is designed to maintain the miasma, the impression, the image that somehow, if one contributes to private health care schemes, one will get better treatment in the long run. That is not a fact.
If this is meant to be a tiny thin edge of a devastating wedge, the Minister has made a mistake, as has the Conservative party, for it is largely Conservative voters who have always had the firm belief that contributing to private medicine produces better care. That is manifestly not the case, and in many instances it contributes to worse care.
We have not yet reached the point where, for example, in Marseilles, private doctors are killing one another to take control of private clinics. Who knows, such an ethos may develop here if people get into the cut-throat business of providing private care solely on the basis of profit. We have not yet reached that stage, but what the Government are proposing is designed to convince people that private care is better than the NHS. Frankly, I do not think that the electorate are that stupid.

Mr. Lilley: Opposition Members have made a number of attacks, some detailed and some general, against the regulations. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, reasonably, that it was possible to oppose tax reliefs of this kind without being opposed to private medicine. I agree, and I was simply saying that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, rather than the Liberal party—or the SLD—were opposed to it on that ground.
I recognise that the fiscal purists believe in the absence of all reliefs and therefore oppose the relief that we are discussing. I am not sure that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed falls into that category. He favours some tax reliefs for certain things of which he approves but. not for other things, of which he thinks we approve more. That is why I gather he is against this relief.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) is, and can proudly claim to be, a fiscal purist. His position is consistent and reasonable. I have always been more inclined to believe that, though one should do away with reliefs wherever they are unnecessary and very expensive, there is scope for closely targeted reliefs, and the one before us falls into that category, which is why we accepted it. It also brings the benefits on the public expenditure side that I spelt out.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed also said that these instruments sent out the wrong signals, would somehow demoralise people and would lead them to believe that at some unspecified date at the end of this century or the beginning of the next something terrible would happen to the NHS. That is so much rubbish and bunkum. No such message is drawn from other tax reliefs that exist in the system, and he knows as well as I do I hat the vast majority of people, including all Conservative Members, are wholly committed to improving the N HS, the national well-being and the national health generally.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the logic of the system implied that we should limit the relief to those with existing schemes. We are keen and anxious that more people should, if they so desire, take out private medical insurance and thereby relieve the pressure on waiting lists, as I spelt out.
The hon. Gentleman asked, paradoxically, why we excluded alternative medicine from the scheme. He is against the scheme, but he wants to extend it more widely than the facilities available on the NHS. If the NHS does not think that a particular type of treatment is appropriate to be financed from the public purse, it would seem odd that it should be encouraged by this tax relief. It certainly would not, by definition, if we extended the relief in that way, have the effect of relieving any pressure on the NHS as the NHS does not carry out such operations.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the misprints at the bottom of the principal note in the schedule, for which I apologise unreservedly. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said that he hoped that the Inland Revenue had "crawled over" the measure to ensure that it was as tightly drawn as possible, and I assure him that it was while doing just that that the Revenue discovered the mistakes. Although it is regrettable that they appeared in the first place, I am glad that they were discovered and that their existence was made known to the House.

Mr. Cryer: The Department has said that it will introduce changes at the earliest opportunity and issue a schedule identifying the errors. Will that be issued to recipients of the instrument free of charge?

Mr. Lilley: I will find out and let the hon. Gentleman know, but I do not think that this is the most expensive piece of paper available—or, indeed, that it is likely to go to people who are unable to afford a second copy.
I hope that it will not embarrass the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) if, for the second time in recent debates, I pay tribute to him and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments for their work in general and for their work in this regard particularly. He has sought elucidation, and, if it is appropriate, I shall make it available directly to him or to the Committee. He asked whether the correction to the misprints would be issued free. A correction slip will be issued free. I hope that that satisfies him.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the prayer was being debated too soon. I understand that his Committee's timetable is involved, but the statutory instruments came into force three weeks ago, and it was appropriate to debate them as soon as possible. This was the first opportunity that was compatible with an early debate and with the Committee's being able to go through them.
The hon. Gentleman went on—in his private, or political, rather than his Committee capacity—to suggest that the measure represented an attack on the National Health Service, foreshadowing the remarks of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). There is a degree of paranoia among Opposition Members about private medicine and the National Health Service, but it is perfectly possible for the two to exist side by side to the benefit of each. That is the aim of all the measures that the Government have introduced: there will be no conflict.
We are often invited to compare this country—to its disadvantage—with countries such as Germany and France, which allegedly spend a higher proportion of their gross domestic product on health. The main difference, however, is the much greater percentage of GDP that those countries spend on private medical care. In the eyes of the Opposition, that apparently does not undermine the national health services of those countries; nor need a thriving private medical sector undermine this country's
National Health Service.

Sir Alan Glyn: Surely co-operation between private medicine and the National Health Service is necessary to provide patients with better facilities.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is quite right.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South suggested that the NHS hospital trusts that are proposed as part of our Health Service reforms would in some way undermine the service—that they would be opting out. He knows that that is bunkum. The fact that he has to resort to such allegations suggests that he is trying to feed people's fears rather than that he believes what he is saying.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said that the private medical insurance schemes ceased to provide effective cover for patients beyond a certain point, and that this measure was meant to redeem that weakness. In fact, she is almost certainly wrong, at least in many cases. I offer no broad defence of all medical insurance schemes. In one respect she is certainly wrong. I cannot see how, as she suggested, this particular tax relief would resolve the problem that she alleges to exist. On that ground her attempt to find some obscure reason for the introduction of this scheme falls.

Mr. Boateng: It is as plain as a pikestaff.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman thinks that it is as plain as a pikestaff. Certainly it is not clear to me how the difficulty alluded to by the hon. Lady is overcome by this tax relief.

Mrs. Dunwoody: When people who have been contributing to private health schemes become elderly many of them suddenly realise that they are not covered for the diseases from which they are suffering. They then cease to contribute because, even if they stayed in the

schemes, their premiums would go up and their cover down. On the whole, they are not silly enough to continue that arrangement. This tax relief will result in many people continuing to pay into schemes in the belief that, somehow or other, they will get a tiny amount of cover. But the question of real health care will not be taken care of.

Mr. Lilley: Obviously contracts specify what is covered and what is not. In another place the noble Lord Wigoder, who has some knowledge of BUPA, said in relation to that body:
There are no additional exclusions of any kind applied to elderly subscribers …Overall somewhere between 96 to 97 per cent. of the hospital and surgical claims that we receive are paid in full."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 1990; Vol. 514, c. 695.]
I quote those words without endorsement. If the hon. Lady wishes to disagree with the noble Lord and show him that he is wrong, she is entitled to take up the matter in correspondence with him.
I conclude by reiterating—[Interruption.]—to the obvious support and enthusiasm of my hon. Friends, that these two instruments will implement the measure introduced in the last Finance Act, which had the overwhelming support of this House. It will do so in a sensible way, which will limit that relief to the provision of treatments available on the National Health Service, and, in so doing, make life easier for those who are retiring and wish to continue their private medical insurance, and will relieve pressure on the National Health Service.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 168.

Division No. 58]
[11.23pm


AYES


Alton, David
Doran, Frank


Armstrong, Hilary
Duffy, A. E. P.


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Ashton, Joe
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Eadie, Alexander


Barron, Kevin
Eastham, Ken


Beckett, Margaret
Fatchett, Derek


Beith, A. J.
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n amp; R'dish)
Fisher, Mark


Blair, Tony
Flynn, Paul


Blunkett, David
Foster, Derek


Boateng, Paul
Foulkes, George


Boyes, Roland
Fyfe, Maria


Bradley, Keith
Galloway, George


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Graham, Thomas


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Buchan, Norman
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Callaghan, Jim
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Haynes, Frank


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Henderson, Doug


Canavan, Dennis
Hinchliffe, David


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Home Robertson, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Howells, Geraint


Clay, Bob
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Ingram, Adam


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kennedy, Charles


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kirkwood, Archy


Cryer, Bob
Lamond, James


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leadbitter, Ted


Dalyell, Tam
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Darling, Alistair
Loyden, Eddie


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
McAllion, John


Dewar, Donald
McAvoy, Thomas


Dixon, Don
McCartney, Ian


Dobson, Frank
McFall, John




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amess, David
Couchman, James


Amos, Alan
Gran, James


Arbuthnot, James
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd amp; Spald'g)


Ashby, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Aspinwall, Jack
Day, Stephen


Atkins, Robert
Devlin, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dorrell, Stephen


Batiste, Spencer
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bellingham, Henry
Dover, Den


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dunn, Bob


Bevan, David Gilroy
Durant, Tony


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Eggar, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Emery, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Evennett, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Favell, Tony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bright, Graham
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brown, Michael (Brigg amp;Crt's)
Forth, Eric


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Franks, Cecil


Buck, Sir Antony
Freeman, Roger


Burns, Simon
Fry, Peter


Butcher, John
Gale, Roger


Butler, Chris
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Gill, Christopher


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carttiss, Michael
Gow, Ian


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Chope, Christopher
Gregory, Conal


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Colvin, Michael
Grist, Ian

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Rowlands, Ted


McLeish, Henry
Ruddock, Joan


McNamara, Kevin
Short, Clare


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, David (Shettlesfon)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton amp; F'bury)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Martlew, Eric
Soley, Clive


Maxton, John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Turner, Dennis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Vaz, Keith


Morgan, Rhodri
Wallace, James


Morley, Elliot
Walley, Joan


Mowlam, Marjorie
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Mullin, Chris
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Murphy, Paul
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


O'Brien, William
Winnick, David


O'Neill, Martin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Patchett, Terry
Worthington, Tony


Pendry, Tom
Wray, Jimmy


Prescott, John



Primarolo, Dawn
Tellers for the Ayes:


Quin, Ms Joyce
Mr. John Battle and


Rogers, Allan
Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neale, Gerrard


Hanley, Jeremy
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Neubert, Michael


Harris, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawkins, Christopher
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayes, Jerry
Norris, Steve


Hayward, Robert
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Paice, James


Hind, Kenneth
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Pawsey, James


Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Portillo, Michael


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Redwood, John


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Rhodes James, Robert


Irvine, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jackson, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


Janman, Tim
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shersby, Michael


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset N)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Stern, Michael


Knapman, Roger
Stevens, Lewis


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stradling Thomas, Sir Jahn


Knox, David
Summerson, Hugo


Lawrence, Ivan
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lightbown, David
Thurnham, Peter


Lilley, Peter
Twinn, Dr Ian


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Waddington, Rt Hon David


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Walden, George


Maclean, David
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Waller, Gary


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Warren, Kenneth


Matins, Humfrey
Wells, Bowen


Mans, Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Maples, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Wilshire, David


Maude, Hon Francis
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wolfson, Mark


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Wood, Timothy


Miller, Sir Hal
Yeo, Tim


Mills, lain
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)



Monro, Sir Hector
Tellers for the Noes:


Morrison, Sir Charles
Mr.Sydney Chapman and


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Mr.John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENTRY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINSTRATION

Ordered,

that Mr. David Ashby and Mr. Jack aspinwall be discharged from the select Committee on the Parliamentery commission for administration and Mr. William Hague and Mr. Michael Loard be added to the committee.—[Mr.Dorrell.]

PETITIONS

Ambulance Dispute

Mr. Charles Kennedy: On this day of action in support of our ambulance drivers and crews throughout the country—action which has focused on Westminster as well—it is with very great pleasure indeed that I present a petition signed by 40,000 people from all parts of the country in support of the case which the ambulance men are putting forward and urging the need for a speedy resolution of the dispute. They say:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House urge the Secretary of State for Health to use the good offices of ACAS and agree to arbitration in order to end this unnecessary dispute; and urge the Secretary of State to provide a pay formula for the Ambulance Service similar to that for the other emergency services.
It is my very great pleasure, on behalf of the 40,000 who signed this petition, to present it formally to the House.

To lie upon the Table.

Mobile Home Residents

Mr. Elliot Morley: I wish to present a petition on behalf of 515 residents of mobile homes in the Glanford and Scunthorpe constituency. This petition was organised by Mr. J. E. Epps of 40 Main avenue with the help of a Mr. East.
The petition draws the Government's attention to the injustice that mobile home dwellers face with the imposition of the poll tax. Under the old system, the rates took into account the fact that those people who lived in mobile homes paid a site rent which covered such things as the installation of street lamps and the maintenance of the roads on the site. This, of course, is no longer taken into account in the poll tax. People on low incomes, many elderly people who have sold up to retire to mobile homes, many young families who cannot get a council house to rent and cannot afford to buy a home, live on these mobile sites, and this unfair and regressive tax falls very heavily upon them.
I give my wholehearted support to the petition.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that you Honourable House will reconsider the effects and application of this unfair tax.

To lie upon the Table.

Allergies

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Sir Jim Spicer: I claim no special knowledge of the problems which can be, and indeed are, caused by our environment to many people in this country. Allergy symptoms are just one small part of a whole range of modern diseases, such as certain cancers, heart disease, multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer's disease, but there can be little doubt that environmental pollutants such as aluminium, pesticide residues, hydrocarbons and so on are factors in all these diseases.
My interest in allergy and other areas related to it stems entirely from my work within my constituency. I should like to give two specific examples from within that constituency.
The first relates to a young man called William Rudd, who was the son of very good friends of ours and who went to school with my daughters at a very early age. He grew up to be a great sportsman, a good athlete and a good all-rounder and scholar. In his late teens he developed major allergy problems which grew worse as he advanced into his 20s. The only effective treatment that could be provided for him—when I say "effective treatment", I do not mean treatment leading to a cure but treatment to contain the problem—was provided by Dr. Jean Monro.
However, the treatment was private and rather expensive. For many years, William's parents, who were farmers, struggled to raise the money to pay for it. I did my best to help. I am delighted that the local health authority eventually began to contribute to the cost of the treatment. Without the treatment, William's life would have been unbearable. Even with it, the outcome was that in his early 30s, having suffered from myalgic encephalomyelitis and total allergy for more than nine years, he took his own life. He had lived in a sterile environment, virtually on his own, throughout the nine years, and I think the strain and the stress became unbearable.
I turn to a happier history, again of a constituent, Miss Cathy Bailey. Until September 1987, she was teaching full time in Dorchester. Then she became ill. After nine months of visits to doctors and specialists, during which time she deteriorated in every way, she saw Dr. Jean Monro, who diagnosed ME, with multi-food and chemical sensitivities as well.
I first met Cathy in October 1988. By then, she was a truly pitiful sight. She weighed just under five stone, was incapable of working and was in total decline. Once again, I am delighted that West Dorset health authority turned up trumps and helped with the funding of her treatment. Without that help, she would not have been able to continue the treatment.
Cathy came to see me just two weeks ago. I have never seen such a startling transformation. Her weight is up to eight stone and she is back at work, although only part time. Without the support and understanding of West Dorset health authority, of our director of community medicine, who saw Cathy and understood what the problem was and how it should be treated, of Dorset education authority, which gave her full support, and of her own headmaster and her school, who carried her willingly and happily during the period of illness, and


above all, without the treatment that she was given, I am convinced that by now she would have been a total invalid or dead.
I will let my hon. Friend the Minister have a note of Cathy's history because it relates clearly and concisely, with dates, not only the tremendous help and support which she was given by some people in the medical profession, but also the scepticism that she encountered from others in the profession, who said, "There's nothing wrong with you; go away have a long walk, take more exercise and you'll be fine," or "Go to a psychiatrist who will sort you out, because it's all in your mind."
The difference in the attitude of the medical profession in Cathy's case is mirrored throughout the country. We all know that a large number within the medical profession will not accept that ME or allergy is an illness which requires careful and specialised treatment.
I am delighted that, in west Dorset, there are many dedicated people. As a result of their experience of this new and largely unknown problem, a chair in environmental medicine has been established at the Robens Institute at the University of Surrey. Professor William Rae has been appointed to the chair, and he plans to undertake a wide range of investigations into this field. A former colleague of ours in the House, the Earl of Ancram, is the president of the Environmental Medicine Foundation, and a constituent of mine, Lady Colfox, is its chairman.
In a few short minutes, it is not possible to do more than to touch upon the many and varied problems that arise from these conditions, but I know that almost every hon. Member has constituency experience of those problems. Early-day motion 288, tabled by my hon. Friends and me, bears witness to that fact: within two or three weeks it had been signed by 184 hon. Members.
I ask my hon. Friend and her Department to undertake to have a long hard look at this subject and in particular to study, and, it is to be hoped, give support—both physical and financial—to the work of the Environmental Medicine Foundation, which is being so ably led by Professor Rae.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): We are all indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) for raising this important subject. It is clear from the examples that he gave and from his history of involvement in the Environmental Medicine Foundation that my hon. Friend has taken responsibility for championing the cause of those suffering from such conditions and for drawing their problems to the attention of the House.
In recent years many people have become interested in allergies. Such concerns are increasingly shared by doctors as well as by those people who suffer from allergies of various kinds. We all live in an increasingly complex environment in which there are many substances that may affect us as we go about our everyday life.
Many people—the precise number is unknown, but it may be 10 per cent. of the population—suffer from some kind of allergy. Of course, one problem is that the label "allergy" is now attached to a number of apparently unrelated symptoms and problems of varying degrees of seriousness. Some of those with a so-called allergy may he reacting to a period of stress or some kind of emotional problem. Such people may be difficult to treat or manage.

Others are demonstrably allergic to a variety of substances. A variety of treatments can be offered, including avoidance of exposure to that substance or substances and treatment aimed at producing symptomatic relief.
It is a measure of the increasing importance that the medical profession gives to allergy that clinical immunology and allergy has now been accepted as a separate speciality. My hon. Friend referred to the difficulty of getting sufficient medical recognition for the subject, but I hope that he will agree that there has been progress. The Royal College of Physicians recommended that the speciality should be recognised in 1987 and subsequently the joint committee on higher medical training gave its approval. Before that time it was incorporated under the heading of general medicine, and lost in a variety of other subjects. Of course, this did not mean that there was no NHS treatment for allergy. Then, as now, there were a number of hospital consultants who took a special interest in the subject.
Treatment for allergies is widely available under the NHS. Less serious cases, which are perhaps in the majority—for example, people with one of the milder allergic reactions to a particular kind of food such as shellfish or who suffer from hay fever—are treated satisfactorily by their general practitioners or even by over-the-counter remedies. Where symptoms are more serious or more prolonged, a GP may refer the patient to a hospital consultant if that is considered to be necessary.
I am happy to say that there are about 45 specialist NHS clinics located in various places around the country. Such clinics are not the only ones equipped to investigate the cause of allergic reaction in individual cases, and recommend treatments. Many other specialists outside these clinics take an interest in various kinds of treatment for allergies, and provide it under the NHS. These will include chest specialists. Allergy is so important for their work that training in allergy is a mandatory part of their postgraduate training. The postgraduate training of dermatologists, paediatricians, ear, nose and throat surgeons and gastro-enterologists also includes a component of study of allergy and they can and do provide treatment.
I recognise the points made by my hon. Friend and that there are times when patients feel that they have not been given the consideration and respect that their circumstances require. However, we are continuing to see further progress in the significance and priority that is given to allergy.
Following the recognition of allergy as a specialty, the position has continued to improve. The joint planning advisory committee, which advises the Department of Health on medical manpower, last looked at the position of senior registrars in 1988. At that time it recommended that the number of senior registrars in clinical immunology and allergy should double, from five to 10. It is due to review the position again in 1991. I know that my hon. Friend will regard that with close interest.
Only yesterday the Department issued an executive letter on rehabilitation and clinical immunology and allergy informing health authorities that the specialties of rehabilitation and clinical immunology and allergy will be recognised as separate clinical specialties for manpower purposes. Employing health authorities will therefore need to change the designation on the contracts of those doctors currently in post practising in those specialties. It also


reminded health authorities that in 1987 the Royal College of Physicians recommended that each district should have a physician in immunology and allergy either in a system-based specialty such as thoracic medicines or, for example, a general physician with a special interest.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden): Will my hon. Friend state clearly whether those provisions will lead to increased funding for the additional posts? She mentioned funding a moment ago.

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will be well aware that there has been a substantial increase in resources for the Health Service in recent years. The specific allocation of resources is, of course, a matter for the district health authorities in conjunction and discussion with the regional health authorities. The requirement from the Department that manpower is more explicitly defined and the greater recognition of the specialty will mean that those planning service provisions will inevitably have the subject drawn to their attention more effectively.
Under our new proposals, it is for the district health authorities to plan to meet the health needs of those resident in their population and it may well be that individuals will wish to take up with their district health authority the question of what arrangements it has made and what contracts it has placed for the special treatment of patients with allergic problems. From 30 September 1990 health authorities will need to have amended the contracts of doctors in post practising in clinical immunology and allergy and to record them separately which will mean that there is greater clarity about the availability of those with the skills to undertake this work.
There are some National Health Service clinics with long waiting times before a first appointment is given. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West is well aware of the problem. Sometimes the general practitioner may consider that the treatment available does not meet a particular patient's needs. In such cases, it is always possible for the GP to refer to another consultant elsewhere. If a hospital consultant takes the view that in his clinical opinion the facilities available are not suitable for a patient, it is always open to him to ask the responsible health authority if it will agree to finance treatment for an NHS patient in a suitable private facility. This is the case in my hon. Friend's example. The health authority's response to such a request will depend on its assessment of priorities within the available resources. Where the treatments are given in a private facility there is often the clear requirement that they should have been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation.
In today's modern world, there is a wide variety of allergy. Hay fever is an allergic reaction to pollen grasses and to trees such as the silver birch. Many people have been worried that oil seed rape—noticeable because of its bright yellow colouring—has increased the severity of their hay fever. Studies are currently being undertaken to see whether that is the case. Others are worried that they are allergic to various kinds of food or to the additives used in the preparation of food. Some people are convinced, for example, that children's behaviour and hyperactivity may be associated with additives and other dietary factors. People who think that they or their

children are affected may wish to purchase foods which are additive free or do not contain additives which create a problem.
To enable those who wish or need to avoid certain additives to do so, all additives, with the exception of flavourings, must be specifically identified by name or serial number on the ingredients list of pre-packaged foods. The E prefix used with the serial number means that it is one of those permitted for use throughout the EEC.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West drew attention to environmental medicine and Professor Rea at the University of Surrey at Guildford. As a Member of Parliament with a neighbouring constituency to Guildford, I am well aware of the work of the Robens Institute. On many occasions it has identified particular areas of concern and has pioneered work on the subjects on which it has focused attention. The work of the Robens Institute covers several important areas and the new initiative, to which my hon. Friend drew attention, is arousing interest.
The advance of medical science in this country depends on the traditions of publication and scrutiny by the scientific community. I look forward to seeing the publication of the works of Professor Rea and others working with him. The Department of Health would naturally be prepared to consider the implications of any new ideas of confirmed effectiveness and validity for the development of patient care in the NHS, as it would the results of any other relevant work.
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Medical Research Council is the main agency for the disbursement of public funds on medical research. I was previously a member of the Medical Research Council and I cannot speak too highly of its ability to scrutinise and allocate resources. It will be up to the EMF to apply to the MRC for support of its work.
In August we wrote to the chairman of the EMF concerning the specialist chemical analyses required for the work of the EMF. We explained that facilities for the analysis of blood for very low concentrations of chemicals, including pesticides, are available in the United Kingdom at the UK Atomic Energy Authority establishment at Harwell at commercial rates. I hope that it will be possible to follow that up.
Many people, on the basis of their experience or that of a friend or relative, believe strongly that environmental medicine, in the sense used by the foundation, can help in the treatment of various conditions. The two examples that my hon. Friend gave from his constituency experience make it clear how poignant some cases are and how desperate the sufferers and their families are for help.
It is important that treatments are subject to careful scientific scrutiny and analysis. If fresh insights from any form of practice are to show their potential, they must be submitted to the highest possible standards of assessment and verification. It is scientific, not political or managerial, judgment which is at issue. The key to progress on this initiative must be the reaction of the medical and scientific community to careful evaluation of the work of the EMF. The development of medicine and science in this country has depended on this process. Those with new ideas have to subject them to the rigorous scientific scrutiny of their peers, followed by independent confirmation, before they are put forward for wider acceptance. I am sure that that continues to be the right way forward.
I pay tribute again to my hon. Friend. He has raised a subject of great importance to the House. I should also like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) and for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), who are also present. They have made clear their interest in the subject and in the progress in the work that has been undertaken. I know that individual constituency cases have been brought to my hon. Friend's attention for which assistance and relief have been provided.
Allergies can be enormously distressing to the patients suffering from them and to their families. We must carefully monitor developments in medical science which move us towards the successful treatment of those distressing conditions. I shall certainly continue to watch carefully the work undertaken, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West and I will have further discussions on this subject.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve o'clock.